of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse.” He then sets out the conduct of the Gentiles under this knowledge, having thus previously shown that if they sinned, it was without excuse. Luther is guilty here of the very error which he charges against Erasmus in Part. iv. Sect. 30, that of assuming parallelisms without proof. Because Jew and Greek are opposed in 1Cor 1, and also here, he assumes that it must be with just the same reference and scope in each. Whereas there it is the rejecting infidel, and here the un-evangelized neglecter and contenmer of God, that is the subject of remark. Still, the testimony against Freewill is entire. Even the conclusion from the sixteenth verse, and from the seventeenth verse, is not abated: “The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Therefore, both Jew and Greek need salvation; therefore, they neither have, nor know it, by Freewill. “Therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith;” therefore, righteousness is not known without it — it is not known by Freewill; it is by faith — and that faith is not of Freewill, but opposed to it. But what does the text itself say in its grammatical sense, as led to and supported by a just view of the context? ‘The wrath of God is revealed against all men in their nature state, for they hold the truth in unrighteousness: they manifest themselves to be what they are — children of wrath and curse, through original sin and guilt — by blinding themselves to that display of God which is made by the visible, and otherwise sensible, things of his hand.
[←689]
Luther does not quote the words in the order in which we I have them in our version, and in which they stand in the original text. “Because, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, neither were they thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God,” etc. — I doubt the propriety of Luther’s distinction here between the wiser of them, and the rest of the nation. He appears to have understood the words ‘faskontev einai sofoi,’ (phaskontes einai sophoi) as expressing those who said they were wise among them. But there is nothing partitive in the form here. It is a description applied to the persons: of whom he had spoken in the preceding verse, and of whom he continues to speak in the following verses. The whole nation, which was a refined and philosophical nation, boasted of its wisdom. The philosophers led the way in much of the idolatry and sin, but the people followed them; and it is of the whole, inclusively but not exclusively of the philosophers, that the Apostle delivers his testimony. Luther’s argument, however, is not affected by this distinction; he only wants to have it secured that the greatest and best of their community are comprehended in the censure.
[←690]
1Cor 3.18-20.
[←691]
Sequentia monstra, quae. The form is ambiguous; it might express that their horrific abominations were the natural consequence of their idolatries: which is true, though I do not consider him as affirming it. The form as I have rendered it, though not grammatical, is common.
[←692]
Quod sine querelâ vivant. Ambiguous — it might mean without a murmur — but it seems clearly to refer to such passages as Phi 3.6; Luk 1.6. — Luther’s representation of these Jews requires chastening: they yielded only an outward observance to the law, either in its ceremonial, or in its moral requirements. They did not really fulfil the commandment any more than they entered into the spirit of the ritual. The real Jew, the spiritual Israelite, was enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see, understand, receive, use, and enjoy Christ in both, by faith; having faith bestowed upon him, by an exercise of grace which was distinct from and beyond his covenant.; (See above, Part iii. Sect. 28. note v .) But the others were transgressors of the law, not because they did not have faith: “For the law is not of faith; but the man who does them shall live in them.” (Gal 3.12.) One of the objects proposed by the law was to make them superabounding transgressors (Rom 5.20); and they were constituted such, not by lack of faith in Christ, but by lack of spiritual obedience to its spiritual requirements. Luther confounds Law and Gospel here: the spirit-faith of Abraham with the letter-morality of Moses! It suits his view of the Apostle’s argument; but that view is incorrect. (See above, Sect. 2. note c .) The Apostle is showing that the law-having Jew is no better than the uncovenanted Gentile: “but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision.” (Rom 2.25.)
[←693]
Velut epilogum faciens. Epil. ‘Postrema pars orationis qua congregantur et repetuntur ea, quae dicta sunt; Latinè peroratio, cumulus, conclusio: ab epilegw, insuper dico, dictis addo, repeto.’
[←694]
Causati sumus. prohtiasameqa (protiasametha). We say, proved; but Luther is more correct, as appears both from the etymology of the word and from the discourse which follows: proait. ante causam affero; ante arguo. Most commentators however, and Sleusner among the rest, assign a sense to it like ours; although this is the only place in the New Testament where the word occurs (Rom 3.9). Paul enters quickly into proof; which looks as if he considered what had preceded as little more than laying a charge. — Some MSS. read the simple verb htias (hetias) which Luther seems to have followed.
[←695]
Velut fructibus impietatis convicti. Their abandonment of God, under which they did such vile things, proved what they were with respect to God, who had been provoked to give them up.
[←696]
That I deny: here he speaks of Jews only; there, by the combination of the two names, he comprehended all men. The very force of the argument consists in its exclusiveness. The Jews would say, those Scriptures do not belong to us, but to the heathens. No, he says, they are addressed to you: “Whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Do not excuse yourselves; it is meant for you chiefly. Why should that be spoken to you, which belongs to others, but not to you? Your excuse therefore cannot be admitted. — It is a common and current mistake that the law was given to everybody: given to Adam in creation, and through him to the whole race. But this is apocryphal, and not canonical Scripture. It was never given except to the Jews, that is, to the church; the elect and covenanted nation of Israel: which was for its hour (a space of fifteen hundred years) the visible church (even as the whole community of professed Christians is that church now); which was the type of the church of the first-born — the true church — and in which the several and individual members of that same church — the people of God during that period existent in the flesh — were chiefly, if not exclusively, gathered into realized union with Christ. — Here at least, it is plain that the Apostle distinguishes between the two parts of mankind — Jews and heathens — by means of this badge. If the rest of mankind is supposed to be dealt with according to this law, and as though they were under it; this must be by a tacit reference to it in the divine mind, not on the ground of any positive and express enactment which had given it to them, and in which they are plainly differenced from the Jews, who are the subjects of remark here.
[←697]
My objection with respect to the law does not affect the universality of the charge. Paul is dealing with a Jewish objector; no question is entertained with respect to the guilt of the heathens. The Scriptures which he quotes have established the guilt of the Jews also. He has therefore made good his charge, that ‘all men’ hold the truth in unrighteousness.
[←698]
See above, Part iv. Sect. 11.
[←699]
I object, as before, to Luther’s interpretation of this text: it is the Jews of whom he is speaking:, not of the best and most excellent of men generally. These testimonies are borne to, and concerning Jews, that they also may have their mouths stopped. There could be no question of the Gentile mouths being stopped, and there was none with the Jews; though they shifted off their own charges from themselves to others. But the argument, again, is not affected by this distinction: the whole world is declared guilty, which is all he wants.
[←700]
Deo obnoxius sen reus. upodikov tw qew. Obnox. in this distinction it expresses ‘liable to charge,’ Reus, ‘one actually arraigned.’ Upoo t q comprehends the two, ‘one charged with crime at the suit of God.’
[←701]
Qaâ interp. reata obstrictus. Interp. See above, Part iv. Sect. 34. note e . Re. ‘the state of the reus or accused;’ obst. ‘one tied and bound with the chain of crime solemnly charged, or imputed.’
[←702]
Luther should not say ‘fulfil;’ it is a mere accommodation of Malachi’s words, which