What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
1. What advantage  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,  and is to be taken in this sense -- "Though it were but this one thing, that they have the oracles  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.
 "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.
 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 that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
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. 
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. 
 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.
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.
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. 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  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." 
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 
(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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
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.
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
9. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.
9. Quid ergo? pr?cellimus?  Nequaquam: ante enim constituimus tam Jud?os quam Gr?cos, omnes sub peccato esse.
9. What then? He returns from his digression to his subject. For lest the Jews should object that they were deprived of their right, as he had mentioned those distinctions of honor, for which they thought themselves superior to the Gentiles, he now at length replies to the question -- in what respect they excelled the Gentiles. And though his answer seems in appearance to militate against what he had said before, (for he now strips those of all dignity to whom he had attributed so much,) there is yet no discord; for those privileges in which he allowed them to be eminent, were separate from themselves, and dependent on God's goodness, and not on their own merit: but here he makes inquiry as to their own worthiness, whether they could glory in any respect in themselves. Hence the two answers he gives so agree together, that the one follows from the other; for while he extols their privileges, by including them among the free benefits of God, he shows that they had nothing of their own. Hence, what he now answers might have been easily inferred; for since it was their chief superiority, that God's oracles were deposited with them, and they had it not through their own merit, there was nothing left for them, on account of which they could glory before God. Now mark the holy contrivance (sanctum artificium) which he adopts; for when he ascribes pre-eminency to them, he speaks in the third person; but when he strips them of all things, he puts himself among them, that he might avoid giving offense.
For we have before brought a charge, etc. The Greek verb which Paul adopts, aitiasthai is properly a forensic term; and I have therefore preferred to render it, "We have brought a charge;"  for an accuser in an action is said to charge a crime, which he is prepared to substantiate by testimonies and other proofs. Now the Apostle had summoned all mankind universally before the tribunal of God, that he might include all under the same condemnation: and it is to no purpose for any one to object, and say that the Apostle here not only brings a charge, but more especially proves it; for a charge is not true except it depends on solid and strong evidences, according to what Cicero says, who, in a certain place, distinguishes between a charge and a slander. We must add, that to be under sin means that we are justly condemned as sinners before God, or that we are held under the curse which is due to sin; for as righteousness brings with it absolution, so sin is followed by condemnation.
 "Pr?cellimus?" proechometha; "Have we the advantage?" Doddridge; "Do we excel?" Macknight; "Have we any preference?" Stuart It is thus paraphrased by Theodoret ti oun katechomen perisson -- "What advantages then, have we?" "Pr?cellimus" is the rendering of Erasmus, Pareus, and Beza Venema says, that this verb, in the active voice only, has this meaning in Greek authors; but the context can allow it no other sense here. Wetstein indeed gives it a passive meaning, "an antecellimur -- are we surpassed?" but it can hardly comport with the drift of the passage. -- Ed.
 So do Grotius, Beza, and Stuart render the verb. Doddridge and Macknight have preserved our common version. "We have before charged," Chalmers "Antea idoneis argumentis demonstravimus -- we have before proved by sufficient arguments." Schleusner It is charge rather than conviction that the verb imports, though the latter idea is also considered to be included. -- Ed.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
10. Sicut scriptum, Quod non est justus quisquam, ne unus quidem;
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
11. Non est intelligens, non est qui requirat Deum;
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
12. Omnes declinarunt, simul facti sunt inutiles; non est qui exerceat benignitatem, ne ad unum quidem:
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
13. Sepulchrum apertum guttur eorum; linguis dolose egerunt: venenum aspidum sub labiis eorum:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
14. Quorum os execratione et amarulentia plenum:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
15. Veloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem;
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
16. Contritio et calamitas in viis eorum;
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
17. Et viam pacis non noverunt:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
18. Non est timor Dei pr? oculis eorum. 
10. As it is written, etc. He has hitherto used proofs or arguments to convince men of their iniquity; he now begins to reason from authority; and it is to Christians the strongest kind of proof, when authority is derived from the only true God. And hence let ecclesiastical teachers learn what their office is; for since Paul asserts here no truth but what he confirms by the sure testimony of Scripture, much less ought such a thing to be attempted by those, who have no other commission but to preach the gospel, which they have received through Paul and others.
There is none righteous, etc. The Apostle, who gives the meaning rather than the entire words, seems, in the first place, before he comes to particulars, to state generally the substance of what the Prophet declares to be in man, and that is -- that none is righteous;  he afterwards particularly enumerates the effects or fruits of this unrighteousness.
11. The first effect is, that there is none that understands: and then this ignorance is immediately proved, for they seek not God; for empty is the man in whom there is not the knowledge of God, whatever other learning he may possess; yea, the sciences and the arts, which in themselves are good, are empty things, when they are without this groundwork.
12. It is added,  There is no one who doeth kindness By this we are to understand, that they had put off every feeling of humanity. For as the best bond of mutual concord among us is the knowledge of God, (as he is the common Father of all, he wonderfully unites us, and without him there is nothing but disunion,) so inhumanity commonly follows where there is ignorance of God, as every one, when he despises others, loves and seeks his own good.
13. It is further added, Their throat is an open grave;  that is, a gulf to swallow up men. It is more than if he had said, that they were devourers (anthropophagous -- men-eaters;) for it is an intimation of extreme barbarity, when the throat is said to be so great a gulf, that it is sufficient to swallow down and devour men whole and entire. Their tongues are deceitful, and, the poison of asps is under their lips, import the same thing,
14. Then he says, that their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness  -- a vice of an opposite character to the former; but the meaning is, that they are in every way full of wickedness; for if they speak fair, they deceive and blend poison with their flatteries; but if they draw forth what they have in their hearts, bitterness and cursing stream out.
16. Very striking is the sentence that is added from Isaiah, Ruin and misery are in all their ways;  for it is a representation of ferociousness above measure barbarous, which produces solitude and waste by destroying every thing wherever it prevails: it is the same as the description which Pliny gives of Domitian.
17. It follows, The way of peace they have not known: they are so habituated to plunders, acts of violence and wrong, to savageness and cruelty, that they know not how to act kindly and courteously.
18. In the last clause  he repeats again, in other words, what we have noticed at the beginning -- that every wickedness flows from a disregard of God: for as the principal part of wisdom is the fear of God, when we depart from that, there remains in us nothing right or pure. In short, as it is a bridle to restrain our wickedness, so when it is wanting, we feel at liberty to indulge every kind of licentiousness.
And that these testimonies may not seem to any one to have been unfitly produced, let us consider each of them in connection with the passages from which they have been taken. David says in Psalm 14:1, that there was such perverseness in men, that God, when looking on them all in their different conditions, could not find a righteous man, no, not one. It then follows, that this evil pervaded mankind universally; for nothing is hid from the sight of God. He speaks indeed at the end of the Psalm of the redemption of Israel: but we shall presently show how men become holy, and how far they are exempt from this condition. In the other Psalms he speaks of the treachery of his enemies, while he was exhibiting in himself and in his descendants a type of the kingdom of Christ: hence we have in his adversaries the representatives of all those, who being alienated from Christ, are not led by his Spirit. Isaiah expressly mentions Israel; and therefore his charge applies with still greater force against the Gentiles. What, then? There is no doubt but that the character of men is described in those words, in order that we may see what man is when left to himself; for Scripture testifies that all men are in this state, who are not regenerated by the grace of God. The condition of the saints would be nothing better, were not this depravity corrected in them: and that they may still remember that they differ nothing from others by nature, they do find in the relics of their flesh (by which they are always encompassed) the seeds of those evils, which would constantly produce fruits, were they not prevented by being mortified; and for this mortification they are indebted to God's mercy and not to their own nature. We may add, that though all the vices here enumerated are not found conspicuously in every individual, yet they may be justly and truly ascribed to human nature, as we have already observed on Romans 1:26.
 Psalm 14:1. The Hebrew is, "There is none that doeth good;" and the Septuagint, "There is none doing kindness, (chrestoteta), there is not even one, (ouk estin heos henos.)" So that the Apostle quotes the meaning, not the words. The eleventh verse (Romans 3:11) is from the same Psalm; the Hebrew, with which the Septuagint agree, except that there is the disjunctive e between the participles, is the following, -- "Whether there is any one who understands, who seeks after God." -- Ed.
 This verse is literally the Septuagint, and as to meaning, a correct version of the Hebrew. "All have gone out of the way -- pantes exeklinan" "is in Hebrew hkl sr, "the whole (or every one) has turned aside," or revolted, or apostatized. Then, "they have become unprofitable" or useless, is n'lchv, "they are become putrid," or Corrupted, like putrified fruit or meat, therefore useless, not fit for what they were designed -- to serve God and to promote their own and the good of others. Idolatry was evidently this putrescence. -- Ed.
 This is from Psalm 5:9, that is, the first part, and is literally the Septuagint, which correctly represents the Hebrew. The last clause is from Psalm 140:3, and is according to the Septuagint, and the Hebrew, too, except that "asps," or adders, is in the singular number. Stuart gives the import of this figurative language different from Calvin: "As from the sepulchre," he says, "issues forth an offensive and pestilential vapor; so from the mouths of slanderous persons issue noisome and pestilential words. Their words are like poison, they utter the poisonous breath of slander." -- Ed.
 Psalm 10:7. Paul corrects the order of the words as found in the Septuagint, and gives the Hebrew more exactly, but retains the word "bitterness," by which the Septuagint have rendered mrmvt, which means deceit, or rather, mischievous deceit. Some think that it ought to be mrrvt, "bitterness;" but there is no copy in its favor. -- Ed.
 Romans 3:15, 16, and 17 are taken from Isaiah 59:7, 8. Both the Hebrew and the Septuagint are alike, but Paul has abbreviated them, and changed two words in the Greek version, having put oxei' for tachinoi, and egnosan for oi'dasi, and has followed that version in leaving out "innocent" before "blood." -- Ed.
 It is taken from Psalm 36:1, and verbatim from the Greek version, and strictly in accordance with the Hebrew. It is evident from several of these quotations, that Paul's object, as Calvin says, was to represent the general meaning, and not to keep strictly to the expressions. There is a difference of opinion as to the precise object of the Apostle; whether in these quotations he had regard to the Jews only, or to both Jews and Gentiles. In the introduction, Romans 3:9, he mentions both, and in the conclusion, Romans 3:19, he evidently refers to both, in these words, "that every, mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." The most consistent view seems to be, that the passages quoted refer both to Jews and Gentiles; the last, more especially, to the Jews, while some of the preceding have a special reference to the Gentile world, particularly Psalm 14, as it describes the character of the enemies of God and his people, to whose liberation the Psalmist refers in the last verse. -- Ed.
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
19. Scimus autem quod qu?cunque Lex dicit, iis qui in Lege sunt loquitur; ut omne os obstruatur, et obnoxius fiat omnis mundus Deo. 
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
20. Quoniam ex operibus Legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram ipso; per Legem enim agnitio peccati.
19. Now we know, etc. Leaving the Gentiles, he distinctly addresses his words to the Jews; for he had a much more difficult work in subduing them, because they, though no less destitute of true righteousness than the Gentiles, yet covered themselves with the cloak of God's covenant, as though it was a sufficient holiness to them to have been separated from the rest of the world by the election of God. And he indeed mentions those evasions which he well understood the Jews were ready to bring forward; for whatever was said in the law unfavorably of mankind, they usually applied to the Gentiles, as though they were exempt from the common condition of men, and no doubt they would have been so, had they not fallen from their own dignity. Hence, that no false conceit as to their own worthiness should be a hinderance to them, and that they might not confine to the Gentiles alone what applied to them in common with others, Paul here anticipates them, and shows, from what Scripture declares, that they were not only blended with the multitude, but that condemnation was peculiarly denounced on them. And we indeed see the discretion of the Apostle in undertaking to refute these objections; for to whom but to the Jews had the law been given, and to whose instruction but theirs ought it to have served? What then it states respecting others is as it were accidental; or as they say, parergon, an appendage; but it applies its teaching mainly to its own disciples.
Under the law He says that the Jews were those to whom the law was destined, it hence follows, that it especially regards them; and under the word law he includes also the Prophets, and so the whole of the Old Testament -- That every mouth may be stopped, etc.; that is, that every evasion may be cut off, and every occasion for excuse. It is a metaphor taken from courts of law, where the accused, if he has anything to plead as a lawful defense, demands leave to speak, that he might clear himself from the things laid to his charge; but if he is convicted by his own conscience, he is silent, and without saying a word waits for his condemnation, being even already by his own silence condemned. Of the same meaning is this saying in Job 40:4, "I will lay my hand on my mouth." He indeed says, that though he was not altogether without some kind of excuse, he would yet cease to justify himself, and submit to the sentence of God. The next clause contains the explanation; for his mouth is stopped, who is so fast held by the sentence of condemnation, that he can by no means escape. According to another sense, to be silent before the Lord is to tremble at his majesty, and to stand mute, being astonished at his brightness. 
20. Therefore by the works of the law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies alone. The addition of the word law induced Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome to assent to the latter opinion;  for they thought that there is a peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the expression should not be understood as including all works. But this difficulty may be very easily removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we seek by them to render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take away the power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be any, which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a reward is apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who held it as an approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic worthiness, but become meritorious by covenant. And though they were mistaken, inasmuch as they saw not that works are ever polluted with vices, which deprive them of any merit, yet this principle is still true, that the reward for works depends on the free promise of the law. Wisely then and rightly does Paul speak here; for he speaks not of mere works, but distinctly and expressly refers to the keeping of the law, the subject which he is discussing. 
As to those things which have been adduced by learned men in defense of this opinion, they are weaker than they might have been. They think that by mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which belonged to ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have already explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than hypocrites, and we know that they glory only in external masks; and then circumcision, according to their view, was a sort of initiation into the righteousness of the law; and hence it seemed to them a work of primary excellence, and indeed the basis as it were of the righteousness of works. -- They also allege what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul handles the same subject, and refers to ceremonies only; but that also is not sufficiently strong to support what they wish to defend. It is certain that Paul had a controversy with those who inspired the people with a false confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of this confidence, he did not confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak specifically of what value they were; but he included the whole law, as it is evident from those passages which are derived from that source. Such also was the character of the disputation held at Jerusalem by the disciples.
But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks here of the whole law; for we are abundantly supported by the thread of reasoning which he has hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are many other passages which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore a truth, which deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, -- that by keeping the law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned the reason, and he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being to a man guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law. And these two things -- to be justified by works -- and to be guilty of transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly inconsistent the one with the other. -- The word flesh, without some particular specification, signifies men;  though it seems to convey a meaning somewhat more general, as it is more expressive to say, "All mortals," than to say, "All men," as you may see in Gallius.
For by the law, etc. He reasons from what is of an opposite character, -- that righteousness is not brought to us by the law, because it convinces us of sin and condemns us; for life and death proceed not from the same fountain. And as he reasons from the contrary effect of the law, that it cannot confer righteousness on us, let us know, that the argument does not otherwise hold good, except we hold this as an inseparable and unvarying circumstance, -- that by showing to man his sin, it cuts off the hope of salvation. It is indeed by itself, as it teaches us what righteousness is, the way to salvation: but our depravity and corruption prevent it from being in this respect of any advantage to us. It is also necessary in the second place to add this, -- that whosoever is found to be a sinner, is deprived of righteousness; for to devise with the sophisters a half kind of righteousness, so that works in part justify, is frivolous: but nothing is in this respect gained, on account of man's corruption.
 Obnoxius Deo -- hupodikos to theo: "Obnoxius condemnationi Dei -- subject to the condemnation of God" Beza; "Liable to punishment before God," Macknight; "Stand convicted before God," Doddridge The word means to be "under sentence" or under condemnation, and thus "to God," i.e., before God. Tillotson gives this paraphrase, "Liable to the Divine justice." It may be rendered "condemned before God." The meaning is that the world is under condemnation. -- Ed.
 To see the force and meaning of this verse, we must bear in mind that the former part was said to prevent the Jews from evading the application of the preceding testimonies; and then the words "that every mouth," etc., and "that all the world," etc., were added, not so much to include the Gentiles, as to include the Jews, who thought themselves exempted. No doubt the Gentiles are included, but the special object of the Apostle evidently seems to prevent the Jews from supposing that they were not included. In no other way can the connection between the two parts of the verse be understood. -- Ed.
 The original is "ut in priorem opinionem concederent:" but the context shows clearly that "priorem" is a misprint for "posteriorem. In addition to the authors mentioned here may be added Ambrose, Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, and Grotius And yet, notwithstanding all those authorities, the opinion referred to is wholly inconsistent with the reasoning of the Apostle here and throughout the whole Epistle. It has indeed been given up as untenable by modern authors of the same school, such as Locke, Whitby, and Macknight To disprove this notion it is sufficient to notice the sins which the Apostle had referred to; they are not those against the ceremonial but the moral law, and it is because the moral law is transgressed that it cannot justify. "If there be any law which man has perfectly kept, he may doubtless be justified by it; and surely no man can be justified by a law which condemns him for breaking it. But there is no law of God which any man has kept; therefore no law by the deeds of which a man can be justified. The Gentile broke the law of his reason and conscience; the Jew broke the moral law; and even the attempt to justify himself by observing the ceremonial law, contradicted the very nature and intent of it." -- Scott
 The argument and the reasoning of the Apostle seem to require that ex ergon nomou should be rendered here literally, "by works of law," without the article, as the word "law" seems here, according to the drift of the argument, to mean law in general, both natural and revealed; and dia nomou in the next clause must be regarded as having the same meaning; the law of nature as well as the written law, though not to the same extent, makes sin known. This is the view taken by Pareus, Doddridge, Macknight, Stuart, and Haldane. -- Ed.
 The expression is ou pasa sarx -- not all, that is, not any flesh, etc.; the word pasa, like kl in Hebrew, is used here in the sense of "any." The sentence bears a resemblance to what is contained in Psalm 143:2, "for justified before thee shall not all living," or, not any one living, l' kl chy. The sentence here is literally, "Hence by works of law shall not be justified any flesh before Him." -- Ed.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
21. But now the righteousness of God without the law  is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
21. Nunc autem sine Lege justitia Dei manifesto est, testimonio comprobata Legis et prophetarum;
22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
22. Justitia, inquam, Dei per fidem Iesu Christi, in omnes et super omnes credentes; non est san? distinctio:
21. But now without the law, etc. It is not certain for what distinct reason he calls that the righteousness of God, which we obtain by faith; whether it be, because it can alone stand before God, or because the Lord in his mercy confers it on us. As both interpretations are suitable, we contend for neither. This righteousness then, which God communicates to man, and accepts alone, and owns as righteousness, has been revealed, he says, without the law, that is without the aid of the law; and the law is to be understood as meaning works; for it is not proper to refer this to its teaching, which he immediately adduces as bearing witness to the gratuitous righteousness of faith. Some confine it to ceremonies; but this view I shall presently show to be unsound and frigid. We ought then to know, that the merits of works are excluded. We also see that he blends not works with the mercy of God; but having taken away and wholly removed all confidence in works, he sets up mercy alone.
It is not unknown to me, that Augustine gives a different explanation; for he thinks that the righteousness of God is the grace of regeneration; and this grace he allows to be free, because God renews us, when unworthy, by his Spirit; and from this he excludes the works of the law, that is, those works, by which men of themselves endeavor, without renovation, to render God indebted to them. (Deum promereri -- to oblige God.) I also well know, that some new speculators proudly adduce this sentiment, as though it were at this day revealed to them. But that the Apostle includes all works without exception, even those which the Lord produces in his own people, is evident from the context.
For no doubt Abraham was regenerated and led by the Spirit of God at the time when he denied that he was justified by works. Hence he excluded from man's justification not only works morally good, as they commonly call them, and such as are done by the impulse of nature, but also all those which even the faithful can perform.  Again, since this is a definition of the righteousness of faith, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," there is no question to be made about this or that kind of work; but the merit of works being abolished, the remission of sins alone is set down as the cause of righteousness.
They think that these two things well agree, -- that man is justified by faith through the grace of Christ, -- and that he is yet justified by the works, which proceed from spiritual regeneration; for God gratuitously renews us, and we also receive his gift by faith. But Paul takes up a very different principle, -- that the consciences of men will never be tranquillized until they recumb on the mercy of God alone.  Hence, in another place, after having taught us that God is in Christ justifying men, he expresses the manner, -- "by not imputing to them their sins." In like manner, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he puts the law in opposition to faith with regard to justification; for the law promises life to those who do what it commands, (Galatians 3:12;) and it requires not only the outward performance of works, but also sincere love to God. It hence follows, that in the righteousness of faith, no merit of works is allowed. It then appears evident, that it is but a frivolous sophistry to say, that we are justified in Christ, because we are renewed by the Spirit, inasmuch as we are the members of Christ, -- that we are justified by faith, because we are united by faith to the body of Christ, -- that we are justified freely, because God finds nothing in us but sin.
But we are in Christ because we are out of ourselves; and justified by faith, because we must recumb on the mercy of God alone, and on his gratuitous promises; and freely, because God reconciles us to himself by burying our sins. Nor can this indeed be confined to the commencement of justification, as they dream; for this definition -- "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven" -- was applicable to David, after he had long exercised himself in the service of God; and Abraham, thirty years after his call, though a remarkable example of holiness, had yet no works for which he could glory before God, and hence his faith in the promise was imputed to him for righteousness; and when Paul teaches us that God justifies men by not imputing their sins, he quotes a passage, which is daily repeated in the Church. Still more, the conscience, by which we are disturbed on the score of works, performs its office, not for one day only, but continues to do so through life. It hence follows that we cannot remain, even to death, in a justified state, except we look to Christ only, in whom God has adopted us, and regards us now as accepted. Hence also is their sophistry confuted, who falsely accuse us of asserting, that according to Scripture we are justified by faith only, while the exclusive word only, is nowhere to be found in Scripture. But if justification depends not either on the law, or on ourselves, why should it not be ascribed to mercy alone? and if it be from mercy only, it is then by faith only.
The particle now may be taken adversatively, and not with reference to time; as we often use now for but.  But if you prefer to regard it as an adverb of time, I willingly admit it, so that there may be no room to suspect an evasion; yet the abrogation of ceremonies alone is not to be understood; for it was only the design of the Apostle to illustrate by a comparison the grace by which we excel the fathers. Then the meaning is, that by the preaching of the gospel, after the appearance of Christ in the flesh, the righteousness of faith was revealed. It does not, however, hence follow, that it was hid before the coming of Christ; for a twofold manifestation is to be here noticed: the first in the Old Testament, which was by the word and sacraments; the other in the New, which contains the completion of ceremonies and promises, as exhibited in Christ himself: and we may add, that by the gospel it has received a fuller brightness.
Being proved [or approved] by the testimony,  etc. He adds this, lest in the conferring of free righteousness the gospel should seem to militate against the law. As then he has denied that the righteousness of faith needs the aid of the law, so now he asserts that it is confirmed by its testimony. If then the law affords its testimony to gratuitous righteousness, it is evident that the law was not given for this end, to teach men how to obtain righteousness by works. Hence they pervert it, who turn it to answer any purpose of this kind. And further, if you desire a proof of this truth, examine in order the chief things taught by Moses, and you will find that man, being cast from the kingdom of God, had no other restoration from the beginning than that contained in the evangelical promises through the blessed seed, by whom, as it had been foretold, the serpent's head was to be bruised, and through whom a blessing to the nations had been promised: you will find in the commandments a demonstration of your iniquity, and from the sacrifices and oblations you may learn that satisfaction and cleansing are to be obtained in Christ alone.  When you come to the Prophets you will find the clearest promises of gratuitous mercy. On this subject see my Institutes.
22. Even the righteousness of God, etc.  He shows in few words what this justification is, even that which is found in Christ and is apprehended by faith. At the same time, by introducing again the name of God, he seems to make God the founder, (autorem, the author,) and not only the approver of the righteousness of which he speaks; as though he had said, that it flows from him alone, or that its origin is from heaven, but that it is made manifest to us in Christ.
When therefore we discuss this subject, we ought to proceed in this way: First, the question respecting our justification is to be referred, not to the judgment of men, but to the judgment of God, before whom nothing is counted righteousness, but perfect and absolute obedience to the law; which appears clear from its promises and threatenings: if no one is found who has attained to such a perfect measure of holiness, it follows that all are in themselves destitute of righteousness. Secondly, it is necessary that Christ should come to our aid; who, being alone just, can render us just by transferring to us his own righteousness. You now see how the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of Christ. When therefore we are justified, the efficient cause is the mercy of God, the meritorious is Christ, the instrumental is the word in connection with faith.  Hence faith is said to justify, because it is the instrument by which we receive Christ, in whom righteousness is conveyed to us. Having been made partakers of Christ, we ourselves are not only just, but our works also are counted just before God, and for this reason, because whatever imperfections there may be in them, are obliterated by the blood of Christ; the promises, which are conditional, are also by the same grace fulfilled to us; for God rewards our works as perfect, inasmuch as their defects are covered by free pardon.
Unto all and upon all,  etc. For the sake of amplifying, he repeats the same thing in different forms; it was, that he might more fully express what we have already heard, that faith alone is required, that the faithful are not distinguished by external marks, and that hence it matters not whether they be Gentiles or Jews.
 Here again it is better, and indeed necessary for the Apostle's argument, to render choris nomou, ""without law," that is, without any law, either natural or revealed. The same sentiment is found in Galatians 3:21 -- "For if a law had been given, capable of giving life, truly righteous would have been by law (ek nomou.)" The version of Macknight seems just, "But now a righteousness of God without law is discovered." But we, may retain the tense (pephanerotai) "has been discovered," or manifested, or made known. "A righteousness of God without law," is a similar phrase to "the righteousness of God by faith," in Romans 1:17. -- Then in the following clause the "law" means not specifically the law of Moses, but the Old Testament, excepting the Prophets. -- Ed.
 Professor Hodge very justly observes, "It never was the doctrine of the Reformation, or of the Lutheran and Calvinistic divines, that the imputation of righteousness affected the moral character of those concerned. It is true," he adds, "whom God justifies he also sanctifies; but justification is not sanctification, and the imputation of righteousness is not the infusion of righteousness." -- Ed.
 "The foundation of your trust before God, must be either your own righteousness out and out, or the righteousness of Christ out and out. ... If you are to lean upon your own merit, lean upon it wholly -- if you are to lean upon Christ, lean upon him wholly. The two will not amalgamate together, and it is the attempt to do so, which keeps many a weary and heavy-laden inquirer at a distance from rest, and at a distance from the truth of the gospel. Maintain a clear and consistent posture. Stand not before God with one foot upon a rock and the other upon a treacherous quicksand...We call upon you not to lean so much as the weight of one grain or scruple of your confidence upon your own doings -- to leave this ground entirely, and to come over entirely to the ground of a Redeemer's blood and a Redeemer's righteousness." -- Dr. Chalmers
 "The words but now may be regarded merely as marking the transition from one paragraph to another, or as a designation of tense; now, i.e., under the gospel dispensation. In favor of this view is the phrase, "to declare at this time his righteousness, Romans 3:26." -- Hodge
 "Testimonio comprobata," etc., so Beza and Pareus render marturoumene; "Being attested," Doddridge; "Being testified," Macknight Schleusner gives a paraphrase, "Being predicted and promised;" and this no doubt is the full meaning. -- Ed.
 Concurrent with what is said here is this striking and condensed passage from Scott, -- "It has been witnessed by the law and the Prophets; the ceremonies typified it; the very strictness of the moral law and its awful curses, being compared with the promises of mercy to sinners, implied it; the promises and predictions of the Messiah bore witness to it; the faith and hope of ancient believers recognized it; and the whole Old Testament, rightly understood, taught men to expect and depend on it." -- Ed.
 The words which follow, dia pisteos Iesou Christou "by or through the faith of Jesus Christ," mean not the faith which is his, but the faith of which he is the object. They ought to be rendered "through faith in Jesus Christ." The genitive case has often this meaning: "Echete pistin Theou -- Have faith in (of) God," Mark 11:22; "En pistei zo tHu tou huiou tou Theou -- I live by the faith of the Son of God;" [Galations 2:20;] it should be in our language, "I live by faith in the Son of God." This genitive case of the object is an Hebraism, and is of frequent occurrence. -- Ed.
 The original is this, "Ut ergo justificemur, causa efficiens est misericordia Dei, Christus materia, verbum cum fide instrumentum -- When therefore we are justified, the efficient cause is God's mercy, Christ is the material, the word with faith is the instrument." -- Ed.
 Eis pantas kai epi pantas. He makes a similar difference in his expressions in verse 30. This righteousness, as some say, came to the Jews, as it had been promised to them, and upon the Gentiles, as a gift with which they were not acquainted, and it was conferred on them. But the possession was equal and belonged to all who believed, and to none else, whether Jews or Gentiles. Stuart connects these words with "manifested," or revealed, in verse 21. It is manifested to all, and manifested for all; that is, for the real benefit of all who believe; in other words, it is offered to all, but becomes of real advantage only to those who believe. But the simpler mode is to consider the words, which is, as in our version, to be understood. Erchomene is the word which Luther adopts. -- Ed.
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
23. Omnes enim peccaverunt, et destituuntur gloria Dei;
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
24. Justificati gratis ipsius gratia per redemptionem qu? est in Christo lesu:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
25. Quem proposuit Deus propitiatorium per fidem in sanguine ipsius, in demonstrationem justitiae su?, propter remissionem delictorum,
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
26. Qu? prius extiterunt in tolerantia Dei; ad demonstrationem justitiae suae, in hoc tempore; ut sit ipse justus et Justificans enum qui est ex fide Iesu.
23. There is indeed no difference, etc. He urges on all, without exception, the necessity of seeking righteousness in Christ; as though he had said, "There is no other way of attaining righteousness; for some cannot be justified in this and others in that way; but all must alike be justified by faith, because all are sinners, and therefore have nothing for which they can glory before God." But he takes as granted that every one, conscious of his sin, when he comes before the tribunal of God, is confounded and lost under a sense of his own shame; so that no sinner can bear the presence of God, as we see an example in the case of Adam. He again brings forward a reason taken from the opposite side; and hence we must notice what follows. Since we are all sinners, Paul concludes, that we are deficient in, or destitute of, the praise due to righteousness. There is then, according to what he teaches, no righteousness but what is perfect and absolute. Were there indeed such a thing as half righteousness, it would yet be necessary to deprive the sinner entirely of all glory: and hereby the figment of partial righteousness, as they call it, is sufficiently confuted; for if it were true that we are justified in part by works, and in part by grace, this argument of Paul would be of no force -- that all are deprived of the glory of God because they are sinners. It is then certain, there is no righteousness where there is sin, until Christ removes the curse; and this very thing is what is said in Galatians 3:10, that all who are under the law are exposed to the curse, and that we are delivered from it through the kindness of Christ. The glory of God I take to mean the approbation of God, as in John 12:43, where it is said, that "they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." And thus he summons us from the applause of a human court to the tribunal of heaven. 
24. Being justified freely, etc. A participle is here put for a verb according to the usage of the Greek language. The meaning is, -- that since there remains nothing for men, as to themselves, but to perish, being smitten by the just judgment of God, they are to be justified freely through his mercy; for Christ comes to the aid of this misery, and communicates himself to believers, so that they find in him alone all those things in which they are wanting. There is, perhaps, no passage in the whole Scripture which illustrates in a more striking manner the efficacy of his righteousness; for it shows that God's mercy is the efficient cause, that Christ with his blood is the meritorious cause, that the formal or the instumental cause is faith in the word, and that moreover, the final cause is the glory of the divine justice and goodness.
With regard to the efficient cause, he says, that we are justified freely, and further, by his grace; and he thus repeats the word to show that the whole is from God, and nothing from us. It might have been enough to oppose grace to merits; but lest we should imagine a half kind of grace, he affirms more strongly what he means by a repetition, and claims for God's mercy alone the whole glory of our righteousness, which the sophists divide into parts and mutilate, that they may not be constrained to confess their own poverty. -- Through the redemption, etc. This is the material, -- Christ by his obedience satisfied the Father's justice, (judicium -- judgment,) and by undertaking our cause he liberated us from the tyranny of death, by which we were held captive; as on account of the sacrifice which he offered is our guilt removed. Here again is fully confuted the gloss of those who make righteousness a quality; for if we are counted righteous before God, because we are redeemed by a price, we certainly derive from another what is not in us. And Paul immediately explains more clearly what this redemption is, and what is its object, which is to reconcile us to God; for he calls Christ a propitiation, (or, if we prefer an allusion to an ancient type,) a propitiatory. But what he means is, that we are not otherwise just than through Christ propitiating the Father for us. But it is necessary for us to examine the words. 
25. Whom God hath set forth, etc. The Greek verb, protithenai, means sometimes to determine beforehand, and sometimes to set forth. If the first meaning be taken, Paul refers to the gratuitous mercy of God, in having appointed Christ as our Mediator, that he might appease the Father by the sacrifice of his death: nor is it a small commendation of God's grace that he, of his own good will, sought out a way by which he might remove our curse. According to this view, the passage fully harmonizes with that in John 3:16,
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son."
Yet if we embrace this meaning, it will remain still true, that God hath set him forth in due time, whom he had appointed as a Mediator. There seems to be an allusion in the word, hilasterion, as I have said, to the ancient propitiatory; for he teaches us that the same thing was really exhibited in Christ, which had been previously typified. As, however, the other view cannot be disproved, should any prefer it, I shall not undertake to decide the question. What Paul especially meant here is no doubt evident from his words; and it was this, -- that God, without having regard to Christ, is always angry with us, -- and that we are reconciled to him when we are accepted through his righteousness. God does not indeed hate in us his own workmanship, that is, as we are formed men; but he hates our uncleanness, which has extinguished the light of his image. When the washing of Christ cleanses this away, he then loves and embraces us as his own pure workmanship.
A propitiatory through faith in his blood, etc. I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned "blood," because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation. For, as he had said before, that God is reconciled in Christ, so he now adds, that this reconciliation is obtained by faith, mentioning, at the same time, what it is that faith ought mainly to regard in Christ -- his blood.
For (propter) the remission of sins,  etc. The causal preposition imports as much as though he had said, "for the sake of remission," or, "to this end, that he might blot out sins." And this definition or explanation again confirms what I have already often reminded you, -- that men are pronounced just, not because they are such in reality, but by imputation: for he only uses various modes of expression, that he might more clearly declare, that in this righteousness there is no merit of ours; for if we obtain it by the remission of sins, we conclude that it is not from ourselves; and further, since remission itself is an act of God's bounty alone, every merit falls to the ground.
It may, however, be asked, why he confines pardon to preceding sins? Though this passage is variously explained, yet it seems to me probable that Paul had regard to the legal expiations, which were indeed evidences of a future satisfaction, but could by no means pacify God. There is a similar passage in Hebrews 9:15, where it is said, that by Christ a redemption was brought from sins, which remained under the former Testament. You are not, however, to understand that no sins but those of former times were expiated by the death of Christ -- a delirious notion, which some fanatics have drawn from a distorted view of this passage. For Paul teaches us only this, -- that until the death of Christ there was no way of appeasing God, and that this was not done or accomplished by the legal types: hence the reality was suspended until the fullness of time came. We may further say, that those things which involve us daily in guilt must be regarded in the same light; for there is but one true expiation for all.
Some, in order to avoid what seems inconsistent, have held that former sins are said to have been forgiven, lest there should seem to he a liberty given to sin in future. It is indeed true that no pardon is offered but for sins committed; not that the benefit of redemption fails or is lost, when we afterwards fall, as Novatus and his sect dreamed, but that it is the character of the dispensation of the gospel, to set before him who will sin the judgment and wrath of God, and before the sinner his mercy. But what I have already stated is the real sense.
He adds, that this remission was through forbearance; and this I take simply to mean gentleness, which has stayed the judgment of God, and suffered it not to burst forth to our ruin, until he had at length received us into favor. But there seems to be here also an implied anticipation of what might be said; that no one might object, and say that this favor had only of late appeared. Paul teaches us, that it was an evidence of forbearance.
26. For a demonstration,  etc. The repetition of this clause is emphatical; and Paul resignedly made it, as it was very needful; for nothing is more difficult than to persuade man that he ought to disclaim all things as his own, and to ascribe them all to God. At the same time mention was intentionally made twice of this demonstration, that the Jews might open their eyes to behold it. -- At this time, etc. What had been ever at all times, he applies to the time when Christ was revealed, and not without reason; for what was formerly known in an obscure manner under shadows, God openly manifested in his Son. So the coming of Christ was the time of his good pleasure, and the day of salvation. God had indeed in all ages given some evidence of his righteousness; but it appeared far brighter when the sun of righteousness shone. Noticed, then, ought to be the comparison between the Old and the New Testament; for then only was revealed the righteousness of God when Christ appeared.
That he might be just, etc. This is a definition of that righteousness which he has declared was revealed when Christ was given, and which, as he has taught us in the first chapter, is made known in the gospel: and he affirms that it consists of two parts -- The first is, that God is just, not indeed as one among many, but as one who contains within himself all fullness of righteousness; for complete and full praise, such as is due, is not otherwise given to him, but when he alone obtains the name and the honor of being just, while the whole human race is condemned for injustice: and then the other part refers to the communication of righteousness; for God by no means keeps his riches laid up in himself, but pours them forth upon men. Then the righteousness of God shines in us, whenever he justifies us by faith in Christ; for in vain were Christ given us for righteousness, unless there was the fruition of him by faith. It hence follows, that all were unjust and lost in themselves, until a remedy from heaven was offered to them. 
 Beza gives another view, that the verb husterountai, refers to those who run a race, and reach not the goal, and lose the prize. The "glory of God" is the happiness which he bestows; (see Romans 5:2;) of this all mankind come short, however much some seemed to labor for it; and it can only be attained by faith. Pareus, Locke, and Whitby give the same view. Others consider it to be "the glory" due to God, -- that all come short of rendering him the service and honor which he justly demands and requires. So Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers But Melancthon, Grotius and Macknight seemed to have agreed with Calvin in regarding "glory" here as the praise or approbation that comes from God. The second view seems the most appropriate, according to what is said in Romans 1:21, "they glorified him not as God." -- Ed.
 On this word hilasterion, both Venema, in his Notes on the Comment of Stephanus de Brais on this Epistle, and Professor Stuart, have long remarks. They both agree as to the meaning of the word as found in the Septuagint and in Greek authors, but they disagree as to its import here. It means uniformly in the Septuagint, the mercy-seat, kphrt, and, as it is in the form of an adjective, it has at least once, (Exodus 25:17,) epithema, cover, added to it. But in the classics it means a propitiatory sacrifice, the word thuma, a sacrifice, being understood; but it is used by itself as other words of similar termination are. It is found also in Josephus and in Maccabees in this sense. It appears that Origen, Theodoret, and other Fathers, and also Erasmus, Luther and Locke, take the first meaning -- mercy-seat; and that Grotius, Elsner, Turrettin, Bos, and Tholuck, take the second meaning -- a propitiatory sacrifice. Now as both meanings are legitimate, which of them are we to take? Venema, and Stuart allude to one thing which much favors the latter view, that is, the phrase en to haimati autou; and the latter says, that it would be incongruous to represent Christ himself as the mercy-seat, and to represent him also as sprinkled by his own blood; but that it is appropriate to say that a propitiatory sacrifice was made by his blood. The verb proetheto, set forth, it is added, seems to support the same view. To exhibit a mercy-seat is certainly not suitable language in this connection. Pareus renders it "placamentum -- atonement," hoc est, "placatorem," that is, "atoner, or expiator." Beza's version is the same -- "placamentum;" Doddridge has "propitiation," and Macknight, "a propitiatory," and Schleusner, "expiatorem -- expiator." The word occurs in one other place with the neuter article, to hilasterion, Hebrews 9:5, where it clearly means the mercy-seat. It is ever accompanied with the article in the Septuagint, when by itself, see Leviticus 16:2, 13-15; but here it is without the article, and may be viewed as an adjective dependent on on, "whom," and rendered propitiator. Had the mercy-seat been intended, it would have been to hilasterion. -- Ed.
 The words are, dia ten paresin. They seem connected, not with the first clause, but with the one immediately preceding; and dia may be rendered here in; see a note on Romans 2:26; or more properly, perhaps, on account of. "For a proof of his own righteousness in passing by the sins," etc., Macknight; "In order to declare his justification with respect to the remission of sins," Stuart What is God's "righteousness" here has been variously explained. Some regard it his righteousness in fulfilling his promises, as Beza; others, his righteousness in Christ to believers, mentioned in chapter. 1:17, as Augustine; and others, his righteousness as the God of rectitude and justice, as Chrysostom Some, too, as Grotius, view it as meaning goodness or mercy, regarding the word as having sometimes this sense. It is the context that can help us to the right meaning. God exhibited his Son as a propitiation, to set forth this righteousness; and this righteousness is connected with the remission of, or rather; as the word means, the preterition of or connivance at sins committed under the old dispensation: and those sins were connived at through the forbearance of God, he not executing the punishment they deserved; and the purpose is stated to be, -- that God might be or appear just, while he is the justifier of those who believe in Christ. Now, what can this righteousness be but his administrative justice? As the law allowed no remission, and God did remit sins, there appeared to be a stain on divine justice. The exhibition of Christ as an atonement is what alone removes it. And there is a word in the former verse, as Venema justly observes, which tends to confirm this view, and that word is redemption, apolutrosis, which is a deliverance obtained by a ransom, or by a price, such as justice requires. Both Doddridge and Scott regard the passage in this light; and the latter gives the following version of it, -- "Whom God hath before appointed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his justice, on account of the passing by of sins, that had been committed in former times, through the forbearance of God; I say, for a demonstration of his justice, in this present time, in order that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." -- Nothing can be clearer than this version. The last words are rightly rendered, though not literally; ton ek pisteos Iesou -- "him of the faith of Jesus," or, "him of faith in Jesus." Him of faith is him who believes, as tois houk ek peritomos -- "them not of circumcision" means "them who are not circumcised," Romans 4:12; and tois ex eritheias -- "those of contention," signifies, "those who contend," or, are contentious, Romans 2:8. -- Ed.
 There is a different preposition used here, pros, while eis is found in the preceding verse. The meaning seems to be the same, for both prepositions are used to designate the design, end, or object of any thing. This variety seems to have been usual with the Apostle; similar instances are found in Romans 3:22, as to eis and epi, and in Romans 3:30, as to ek and dia. "By both," says Wolfius, "the final cause (causa finalis) is indicated." Beza renders them both by the same preposition, ad, in Latin; and Stuart regards the two as equivalent. There is, perhaps, more refinement than truth in what Pareus says, -- that eis intimates the proximate end -- the forgiveness of sins; and pros, the final end -- the glory of God in the exhibition of his justice as well as of his mercy. There is, at the same time, something in the passage which seems favorable to this view. Two objects are stated at the end of the passage, -- that God might appear just, and be also the justifier of such as believe. The last may refer to eis, and the former to pros; and this is consistent with the usual style of the Apostle; for, in imitation of the Prophets, where two things are mentioned in a former clause, the order is reversed in the second. -- Ed.
 A parallel passage to this, including the two verses, Romans 3:25 and 26, is found in Hebrews 9:15; where a reference, as here, is made to the effect of Christ's death as to the saints under the Old testament. The same truth is implied in other parts of Scripture, but not so expressly declared. Stuart makes here an important remark -- that if the death of Christ be regarded only as that of a martyr or as an example of constancy, how then could its efficacy be referred to "sins that are past?" In no other way than as a vicarious death could it possibly have any effect on past sins, not punished through God's forbearance. -- Ed.
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
27. Ubi ergo gloriatio?  exclusa est. Per quam legem? operum? Nequaquam; Sed per legem fidei.
28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
28. Constituimus ergo, fide justificari hominem sine operibus Legis.
27. Where then is glorying? The Apostle, after having, with reasons abundantly strong, cast down men from their confidence in works, now triumphs over their folly: and this exulting conclusion was necessary; for on this subject, to teach us would not have been enough; it was necessary that the Holy Spirit should loudly thunder, in order to lay prostrate our loftiness. But he says that glorying is beyond all doubt excluded, for we cannot adduce anything of our own, which is worthy of being approved or commended by God. If the material of glorying be merit, whether you name that of congruity or of condignity, by which man would conciliate God, you see that both are here annihilated; for he treats not of the lessening or the modifying of merit, but Paul leaves not a particle behind. Besides, since by faith glorying in works is so taken away, that faith cannot be truly preached, without wholly depriving man of all praise by ascribing all to God's mercy -- it follows, that we are assisted by no works in obtaining righteousness.
Of works? In what sense does the Apostle deny here, that our merits are excluded by the law, since he has before proved that we are condemned by the law? For if the law delivers us over to death, what glorying can we obtain from it? Does it not on the contrary deprive us of all glorying and cover us with shame? He then indeed showed, that our sin is laid open by what the law declares, for the keeping of it is what we have all neglected: but he means here, that were righteousness to be had by the law of works, our glorying would not be excluded; but as it is by faith alone, there is nothing that we can claim for ourselves; for faith receives all from God, and brings nothing except an humble confession of want.
This contrast between faith and works ought to be carefully noticed: works are here mentioned without any limitation, even works universally. Then he neither speaks of ceremonies only, nor specifically of any external work, but includes all the merits of works which can possibly be imagined.
The name of law is here, with no strict correctness, given to faith: but this by no means obscures the meaning of the Apostle; for what he understands is, that when we come to the rule of faith, the whole glorying in works is laid prostrate; as though he said -- "The righteousness of works is indeed commended by the law, but that of faith has its own law, which leaves to works, whatever they may be, no righteousness." 
28. We then conclude, etc. He now draws the main proposition, as one that is incontrovertible, and adds an explanation. Justification by faith is indeed made very clear, while works are expressly excluded. Hence, in nothing do our adversaries labor more in the present day than in attempts to blend faith with the merits of works. They indeed allow that man is justified by faith; but not by faith alone; yea, they place the efficacy of justification in love, though in words they ascribe it to faith. But Paul affirms in this passage that justification is so gratuitous, that he makes it quite evident, that it can by no means be associated with the merit of works. Why he names the works of the law, I have already explained; and I have also proved that it is quite absurd to confine them to ceremonies. Frigid also is the gloss, that works are to be taken for those which are outward, and done without the Spirit of Christ. On the contrary, the word law that is added, means the same as though he called them meritorious; for what is referred to is the reward promised in the law. 
What, James says, that man is not justified by faith alone, but also by works, does not at all militate against the preceding view. The reconciling of the two views depends chiefly on the drift of the argument pursued by James. For the question with him is not, how men attain righteousness before God, but how they prove to others that they are justified, for his object was to confute hypocrites, who vainly boasted that they had faith. Gross then is the sophistry, not to admit that the word, to justify, is taken in a different sense by James, from that in which it is used by Paul; for they handle different subjects. The word, faith, is also no doubt capable of various meanings. These two things must be taken to the account, before a correct judgment can be formed on the point. We may learn from the context, that James meant no more than that man is not made or proved to be just by a feigned or dead faith, and that he must prove his righteousness by his works. See on this subject my Institutes.
 Gloriatio -- kauchesis -- glorying -- boasting or rejoicing. "The result of the gospel plan of salvation is to prevent all self-approbation, self-gratulation and exaltation on the part of the sinner." -- Hodge
 Grotius explains "law" here by "vivendi regula" -- rule of living;" Beza, by "doctrina -- doctrine or teaching," according to the import of the word tvrh in Hebrew; and Pareus takes "the law of works," metonymically, for works themselves, and "the law of faith," for faith itself; and he quotes these words of Theophylact, "The Apostle calls faith a law because the word, law, was in high veneration among the Jews." He uses the term, law, in a similar manner in Romans 8:2, "The law of the spirit of life," etc. "He calls here the gospel; the law of faith,' because faith is the condition of the gospel covenant, as perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant of nature and of that of Moses, (conditio foederis naturalis et foederis Mosaici.)" -- Turrettin
 The phrase, choris ergon nomou, may be rendered, "without the works of law," that is, either natural or revealed; for Gentiles as well as Jews are here contemplated. -- Ed.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
29. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
29. Num Iud?orum Deus tantum? an non et Gentium? certe et Gentium.
30. Seeing it is one God  which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
30. Quandoquidem unus Deus, qui justificabit circumcisionem ex fide, et Pr?putium per fidem.
29. Is he the God of the Jews only? The second proposition is, that this righteousness belongs no more to the Jews than to the Gentiles: and it was a great matter that this point should be urged, in order that a free passage might be made for the kingdom of Christ through the whole world. He does not then ask simply or expressly, whether God was the Creator of the Gentiles, which was admitted without any dispute; but whether he designed to manifest himself as a Savior also to them. As he had put all mankind on a level, and brought them to the same condition, if there be any difference between them, it is from God, not from themselves, who have all things alike: but if it be true that God designs to make all the nations of the earth partakers of his mercy, then salvation, and righteousness, which is necessary for salvation, must be extended to all. Hence under the name, God, is conveyed an intimation of a mutual relationship, which is often mentioned in Scripture, --
"I shall be to you a God, and you shall be to me a people." (Jeremiah 30:22.)
For the circumstance, that God, for a time, chose for himself a peculiar people, did not make void the origin of mankind, who were all formed after the image of God, and were to be brought up in the world in the hope of a blessed eternity.
30. Who shall justify,  etc. In saying that some are justified by faith, and some through faith, he seems to have indulged himself in varying his language, while he expresses the same thing, and for this end, -- that he might, by the way, touch on the folly of the Jews, who imagined a difference between themselves and the Gentiles, though on the subject of justification there was no difference whatever; for since men became partakers of this grace by faith only, and since faith in all is the same, it is absurd to make a distinction in what is so much alike. I am hence led to think that there is something ironical in the words, as though be said, -- "If any wishes to have a difference made between the Gentile and the Jew, let him take this, -- that the one obtains righteousness by faith, and the other through faith."
But it may be, that some will prefer this distinction, -- that the Jews were justified by faith, because they were born the heirs of grace, as the right of adoption was transmitted to them from the Fathers, -- and that the Gentiles were justified through faith, because the covenant to them was adventitious.
 Heis ho Theos -- unus Deus Heis here means the same, see 1 Corinthians 3:8; or if it be rendered one, it refers to God as being one in his purpose, and as to the way of salvation. See Zechariah 14:9. -- Ed.
 The future is used for the present -- "who justifies," after the manner of the Hebrew language, though some consider that the day of judgment is referred to; but he seems to speak of a present act, or as Grotius says, of a continued act, which the Hebrews expressed by the future tense. -- Ed.
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
31. Legem igitur irritam facimus per fidem? Ne ita sit: sed Legem stabilimus.
31. Do we then make, etc. When the law is opposed to faith, the flesh immediately suspects that there is some contrariety, as though the one were adverse to the other: and this false notion prevails, especially among those who are imbued with wrong ideas as to the law, and leaving the promises, seek nothing else through it but the righteousness of works. And on this account, not only Paul, but our Lord himself, was evil spoken of by the Jews, as though in all his preaching he aimed at the abrogation of the law. Hence it was that he made this protest, --
"I came not to undo, but to fulfill the law." (Matthew 5:17.)
And this suspicion regards the moral as well as the ceremonial law; for as the gospel has put an end to the Mosaic ceremonies, it is supposed to have a tendency to destroy the whole dispensation of Moses. And further, as it sweeps away all the righteousness of works, it is believed to be opposed to all those testimonies of the law, by which the Lord has declared, that he has thereby prescribed the way of righteousness and salvation. I therefore take this defense of Paul, not only as to ceremonies, nor as to the commandments which are called moral, but with regard to the whole law universally. 
For the moral law is in reality confirmed and established through faith in Christ, inasmuch as it was given for this end -- to lead man to Christ by showing him his iniquity; and without this it cannot be fulfilled, and in vain will it require what ought to be done; nor can it do anything but irritate lust more and more, and thus finally increase man's condemnation; but where there is a coming to Christ, there is first found in him the perfect righteousness of the law, which becomes ours by imputation, and then there is sanctification, by which our hearts are prepared to keep the law; it is indeed imperfectly done, but there is an aiming at the work. Similar is the case with ceremonies, which indeed cease and vanish away when Christ comes, but they are in reality confirmed by him; for when they are viewed in themselves they are vain and shadowy images, and then only do they attain anything real and solid, when their end is regarded. In this then consists their chief confirmation, when they have obtained their accomplishment in Christ. Let us then also bear in mind, so to dispense the gospel that by our mode of teaching the law may be confirmed; but let it be sustained by no other strength than that of faith in Christ.
 The law here, no doubt means, the law of which mention is made in the preceding verses -- the law by the works of which we cannot be justified -- the law that is in this respect opposed to faith. To refer us for its meanng to Romans 3:20 and 21, as is done by Stuart, "is wholly unwarrantable," and to say that it means the Old Testament; for this is to separate it from it's immediate connection without any satisfactory reason. Besides, such an interpretation obliterates an important doctrine, that faith does not render void, or nullify the authority, the use and sanctions of the moral law but on the contrary, sustains and confirms them. Though it does what the law does not, and cannot do, inasmuch as it saves the sinner whom the law condemns; it yet effects this without relaxing or dishonoring the law, but in a way that renders it, if possible, more binding, and more honorable, and more illustrious. It only renders the passage more intricate to include the ceremonial law, (for that has more of faith than of law in it,) to which no reference is made in the context: but there seems to be no objection to include the law of conscience, as well as the written law; for faith confirms both, and the word "law," is here without the article, though this indeed of itself is not decisive. The moral law, then, as well as the law of conscience, is what is here intended: for the authority of both is confirmed and strengthened by faith. -- Ed.