Trinity College of Biblical Studies

              Trinity College of Biblical Studies

A STUDY OF THE BOOK OF ROMANS

                      CHAPTER ONE

1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.

The chief purpose of this letter is to break down, to pluck up, and to destroy all wisdom and righteousness of the flesh. This includes all the works which in the eyes of people or even in our own eyes may be great works. No matter whether these works are done with a sincere heart and mind, this letter is to affirm and state and magnify¹ sin, no matter how much someone insists that it does not exist, or that it was believed not to exist. Therefore blessed Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 7, says: The apostle Paul “fights hard against the proud² and the conceited and against those who are arrogant on the basis of their works, etc.… In the Letter to the Romans this question is treated so persistently and almost to the exclusion of all others that it may really weary the attention of the reader. But it is a profitable and salutary wearying.”³ For there are, and have been, among the Gentiles and the Jews many who believed that it was sufficient if they possessed virtue and knowledge not in order to make a good impression on people or to please them but to possess these qualities in their innermost hearts. This has been the case with many philosophers. But even though they did not parade their righteousness before men and did not boast of it but followed it from a real love of virtue and wisdom, as happened among those who were the purest and the best among them (of whom we know only a few beside Socrates), they could not refrain from being pleased with themselves in their innermost hearts and from glorying only in themselves—at least in their hearts—as righteous and good men. Of these people the apostle here says (Rom. 1:22): “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, etc.”

But here the opposite is to be taught. For in the church we should not merely teach that our righteousness and wisdom are nothing and that therefore we should not exalt them in our boasting or celebrate them in a false imagination, even though the Gospel teaches (Matt. 5:15): “Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house,” and (Matt. 5:14): “A city set on a hill cannot be hid”; I say, we should not teach this but rather that our righteousness and wisdom be broken down and plucked up in our hearts and in our inner self-satisfaction before our very eyes. For when we consider them base in our own eyes, it will be easy for us not to worry about the criticism and praise of others, as God tells us through Jeremiah (Jer. 1:10): “To pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow,” namely, everything that is within us (that is, everything that pleases us because it comes from ourselves and lies within us), “to build and to plant,” namely, everything that is outside of us and is in Christ. This is also the vision of Daniel concerning the stone that shattered the statue.⁴ God does not want to redeem us through our own, but through external, righteousness and wisdom; not through one that comes from us and grows in us, but through one that comes to us from the outside; not through one that originates here on earth, but through one that comes from heaven. Therefore, we must be taught a righteousness that comes completely from the outside and is foreign. And therefore our own righteousness that is born in us must first be plucked up. Thus we read in Ps. 45:10: “Forget your people and your father’s house, etc.” Abraham, too, was ordered to leave his father’s house in this way (Gen. 12:1). Thus we read also in the Song of Solomon (Song of Sol. 4:8): “Come from Lebanon, my spouse, and you shall be crowned.” Also, the whole exodus of the people of Israel formerly symbolized that exodus which they interpret as one from faults to virtues. But it would be better to understand it as an exodus from virtues to the grace of Christ, because virtues of that kind are often greater or worse faults the less they are accepted as such and the more powerfully they subordinate to themselves every human emotion at the expense of all other good qualities. Thus the right side of Jordan was more afraid than the left side.⁵ But now Christ wants our whole disposition to be so stripped down⁶ that we are not only unafraid of being embarrassed for our faults and also do not delight in the glory and vain joys of our virtues but that we do not feel called upon to glory before men even in that external righteousness which comes to us from Christ. Nor should we be cast down by sufferings and evils which are inflicted on us for His sake. A true Christian must have no glory of his own and must to such an extent be stripped of everything he calls his own that in honor and in dishonor he can always remain the same in the knowledge that the honor that has been bestowed on him has been given not to him but to Christ, whose righteousness and gifts are shining in him, and that the dishonor inflicted on him is inflicted both on him and on Christ. But to obtain such perfection we need much practice, to say nothing of the special gift of grace. Even though a person with all his natural and spiritual gifts may be wise before men and righteous and good, God will not on that account look upon him as such, especially if he regards himself so. Therefore we must in all these things keep ourselves so humble⁷ as if we still had nothing of our own. We must wait for the naked mercy of God, who will reckon us righteous and wise. This God will do if we have been humble and have not anticipated God by justifying ourselves and by thinking that we are something, as we read in 1 Cor. 4:3–5: “I do not even judge myself.… It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, etc.” To be sure, there are many who for God’s sake consider the goods of the left hand,⁸ that is, temporal goods, of no value and gladly give them up, as the Jews and the heretics are doing. But there are few who for the sake of obtaining the righteousness of Christ consider the goods of the right hand, the spiritual goods and righteous works, worth nothing. This is something the Jews and heretics cannot do. And yet, nobody will be saved unless this takes place. For people always wish and hope that their own works will be accepted and rewarded by God. But this statement stands firm (Rom. 9:16): “It depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.”

But let us now turn to the letter. I cannot believe⁹ that those to whom the apostle writes this letter, whom he calls the beloved of God, the called, and saints, were of such a type that it was necessary for him to step in on account of their discord and to come to the conclusion that they were all sinners. No, if they were Christians, they knew this on the basis of their faith. I prefer to believe that he wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to write to the faithful so that they would have the witness of a great apostle for their faith and doctrine in their fight against the Jews and Gentiles of Rome who still did not believe and boasted of their flesh and opposed the humble wisdom of the faithful. The believers in Rome were forced to live in the midst of them and had to hear and say things that could not be reconciled, as he also wrote in 2 Cor. 5:12: “We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who pride themselves on a man’s position and not on his heart.” Now let us look at the text up to the passage which reads: “For the Gospel is the power of God, etc.” (Rom. 1:16). It contains practical rather than abstract teachings, for the apostle teaches first through his own example how a pastor should act toward those who are entrusted to him.

It is fitting for a wise servant of God to hold his office in high honor and in respect among those who are entrusted to him.

A faithful servant of God, however, is in duty bound not to exceed the authority of his office and not to abuse it for the sake of his own pride but to administer it only for the benefit of those who are entrusted to him.

A servant of God should be a “wise and faithful servant” (Matt. 24:45). If he does not pay attention to the former qualification (wisdom), he will become a mere specter¹⁰ and slothful and unworthy of such honor. Thus in those people who in foolish humility try to get along with everybody everywhere and to be popular with their charges the influence of authority is necessarily lost, and familiarity breeds contempt. How gravely do they sin! They allow the things that belong to God and that have been entrusted to them to be trampled underfoot. They should have seen to it that these things were honored. On the other hand, if he does not pay attention to the latter qualification (faithfulness), he will become a tyrant who always frightens people with his power. He wants to be considered grim. Instead of striving to make their authority as fruitful as possible for others, such people try to make it as frightful as possible, even though according to the apostle that power was given not to destroy but to edify. But let us call these two faults by name: softness and harshness. Concerning the former, Zech. 11:17 says: “O shepherd and idol,¹¹ you who desert the flock.” Concerning the latter, Ezek. 34:4 says: “With force and harshness you have ruled them.” These are the two main faults from which all the mistakes of pastors¹² come. No wonder! For softness is rooted in evil desires, and harshness in uncontrolled wrath. These two faults are responsible for everything that is evil, as everybody knows. Therefore, it is difficult to accept an office unless these two beasts are first slain. They would do even more harm, should the power to cause harm be available to them. Throughout the prolog, or preface, of this letter the apostle presents his own person as a most beautiful example of opposition to these two monsters. For first of all, to prevent his being despised as unfit and soft by those entrusted to him, he shows his office in all its glory. In the second place, in order not to be considered a tyrant and a violent man, he wins the love of his charges with every expression of good will in order to prepare them for the reception of the Gospel and the grace of God by a mixture of fear and love. Accordingly, every pastor in the church, following the example of the apostle, should, like an animal that parts the hoof and is clean,¹³ first of all distinguish with a sharp eye between himself and his office, that is, between “the form of God” and “the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6–7) and, considering himself always the lowliest of all servants, should administer his office with a mixture of fear and love. He should do only those things that are good and profitable for his charges, so that, knowing that the whole office exists for the benefit of his charges, he should rather resign from the office if his experience should show that the welfare and the good of his charges does not follow or that it is being hindered by him personally. Surely, this is the chief sin of a pastor, when through one or the other of these faults, or through both of them, he hinders the success of his ministry, and he will give a most difficult account of his stewardship.

Therefore he says: A servant of Jesus Christ. Both majesty and humility are comprehended in this word: Humility insofar as he does not appoint himself lord and founder, as is the way of tyrants and of the proud, who abuse their power in such a way that they think of nothing but that they have power, as if their power had its origin in themselves and as if they had not received it from someone else. Therefore, they cannot enjoy the blessings which such power gives to them, but they merely enjoy the use of this power. Majesty, however, is implied when he rapturously boasts that he is the servant of such a great Lord. If it is fatal not to honor and to receive the servant of an emperor, what will happen to those who do not honor and receive the servants of God? Thus this word, A servant of Jesus Christ, is a terrifying and powerful word. And I believe that the word servant in this passage is an expression used for the office and the dignity and not for his own service to, and subjection under, God. Thus the apostle is not, I believe, by this word trying to magnify his own personal works by which he alone and in a very special way is serving God. That would be an indication of arrogance. For who would have the courage to claim definitely and conclusively, “I am a servant of God,” when he does not know whether he really has done everything that the Lord expects of him, as he himself says¹⁴ 1 Cor. 4:3: “I do not even judge myself.” For all judgment is with God and all decisions whether a person is a servant or an enemy. But he expressly calls himself a servant, as has been said, because he wants to confess that he has received his office from God above others, as if he wanted to say: “Yes, I preach the Gospel and teach the church, and I baptize and do all the other works which are the works of God alone, but I do these things not as a master who has been placed over you but as a servant to whom such service among you has been entrusted. And I am a servant in this way, for you; and my service has no other purpose but to do what I am indebted to do for you.” This the other service, by which we are all called to render service to God, does not do. That service applies to God alone. To put it briefly: The “servant of God” in the moral and tropological sense is every person by himself and for himself. The “servant of God” in the allegorical sense is a person for others and over others and for the sake of others. For this reason the latter sense signifies dignity and honor, the former complete subordination and humility. Therefore the latter sense has certainty and should inspire confidence, but this is in no way true in the case of the former. In the same way the latter helps others and is adjusted to their needs, but the former benefits only the individual himself. Again, the latter is the special gift of some people, the former should be common to all. The latter has definite tasks and specific boundaries, the former includes all the things a person can do. The latter can exist without grace, the former cannot. Therefore the latter is worth more, but the former¹⁵ is more salutary. The latter is manifest to men in glory, the former is not sufficiently known even to the individual, as I have stated above.

Called to be an apostle. This means, to express it more clearly: “Called as an apostle,” or “Called to the office of apostleship.” With this statement he expresses even more clearly his service, or his ministry. For there are many servants and ministers of Jesus Christ, but they are not all apostles. But all apostles are also servants vants, that is, ministers, that is, people who do the work of the Lord over others and for others, in the place and stead of the Lord. With the first word he strikes three types of people who are not called to offices of honor. The first are the false apostles, who at that time were present in great numbers, whom the devil sowed like weeds (Matt. 13:25) and whom he sent from the north like the boiling pot of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:13). The second are those who enter office with ambitious thoughts. They may not be false apostles or false servants, because they are teaching what is right and true and because they are leading others in a good catholic way. At the same time, however, since they are not called to an office, they stand accused by the word “called.” Though they may not be “thieves and robbers” (John 10:1) like the former, they are still hirelings who are thinking of their own interests and not the interests of Jesus Christ. They are interested in their sheep only insofar as they see in them the opportunity to gain honor, gold, and pleasure. Of such people we have an unusual number in the church today. It is true that they are not accused and condemned in Holy Scriptures in the same way as the false prophets and false apostles, that is, the heretics, the schismatics, and the godless people, concerning whom it is written that they run without being sent and talk without commission (Jer. 23:21) and that they seek after lies, etc. (Ps. 4:2). Yet they are not considered acceptable by God, because they take and seek an office for themselves not from free inclination but from mercenary greed. To these the third group is similar, those who enter office by force or are installed by force through others, even if their presence is not desired by their subjects. These people are worse than the second group but not as bad as the first. But since the holy offices are so sublime, one must be on guard against entering these offices without a divine call, yes, more than against all the dangers of this world and the next, for they are absolutely the greatest of all dangers. But alas, how unfeelingly hard many are today; they see all these things but do not give them a moment’s thought. Not even the people who are called by God are secure,¹⁶ and those other people, where shall they appear?¹⁷ Judas, the apostle, was ruined, Saul fell, and so did David, the chosen one, and yet they had been called and anointed in a special way. Woe, to those other unfortunate ones!

With the second word, apostle, he emphasizes the dignity of his office and inspires greater reverence for his office in his charges and hearers. For if one should receive every servant of God with reverence and love as a person who is doing God’s work among us, how much more reverently should one receive an apostle! He is the highest messenger and the highest angel of the Lord of Hosts, that is, of Jesus Christ.

Truly, among the other benefits which God has given to us in such great numbers we should with praise and our most humble thanks recognize also this benefit, that in His great faithfulness He has given to man such power, lest we be frightened too much and our salvation and the work of the Lord be hampered in us through our excessive fear if He should do this work among us Himself or through angels. But like a faithful physician who is concerned about our weakness, He has chosen people who are like us and familiar to us, that is, creatures of whom we do not have to be afraid in the least. In this way His work is to prosper among us in a fruitful and profitable way, for the fright, which in times of old the prophets would suffer whenever they received a message from God or from an angel, has been taken away. Even Moses could not endure this fright. Because the Word had not yet become flesh, we were not yet able to grasp it on account of its sublimity and our weakness. But now it has been made benign to us and has taken on the form of flesh and is being proclaimed to us by flesh-and-blood people. But this does not imply that we should fear and love it less. It is still the same Word as formerly, even if it does not frighten us but inspires love in us. But the time will come when it will be all the more frightening to those who now refuse to honor and love it.

Set apart for the Gospel of God. This sentence can be understood in a twofold way.

First, it can be understood according to the words written in Acts 13:2: “The Holy Spirit said to them, ‘Set apart for Me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them.’ ”¹⁸ In this case the meaning is that he himself has separately been appointed to the apostleship to the Gentiles, just as Peter and the other apostles have been called to the ministry to the circumcision and the Jews. With this phrase he explains his office in greater detail, for he is not only a servant and an apostle of God but also one who has been separated from the others to be sent particularly to the Gentiles.

But in the second place, it can be interpreted according to the word in Gal. 1:15–16: “But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles.” In this case the meaning would be: Already in his mother’s womb he was ordained by God above other Jews to become an apostle to the Gentiles. Jeremiah prefigured this, for he was told (Jer. 1:5): “Before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” But Paul fulfilled these words in real truth. The words “sanctify,”¹⁹ “separate,” and “set apart” describe almost one and the same thing in Scriptures. But it is more unpretentious and more modest to call himself “separated” rather than “sanctified,” lest he speak boastfully of himself. For what is holy and dedicated to God is also set apart and separated, and therefore sanctified, obviously from the union with unholy things. In any case, “Sanctify yourselves” means as much as “Separate yourselves from things of this world.” This is the holy will of God, that, in the allegorical sense, you separate yourself from evil people and, in the moral sense, from sin. Thus set apart for the Gospel of God is the same thing, that is, “Taken away from preoccupation with other things, I have been dedicated to, initiated in, and sanctified for, this one office, that I teach the Gospel, just as a priest is set apart and separated to offer the sacrifice.” This meaning appeals to me more than the first meaning.

Finally, in writing thus he rebukes those who in spite of their separation for the divine ministry and in spite of the fact that they belong to the Lord get involved in other, worldly affairs as if they were of the world. Accordingly, the apostle serves notice that he is separated not for any type of work but for the special work of proclaiming the Gospel. It is as if he were saying: “My chief work consists in preaching the Gospel, as I say in 1 Cor. 1:17: ‘For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel.’ Even though other apostles may have other tasks, I have been set apart for the preaching of the Gospel.”

2. Which He promised beforehand. He says this so that we should not think that this gift has been received on account of our merits or that it is the result of human wisdom. This is the greatest power and the proof of the Gospel, that it has the witness of the old Law and Prophets that it would be so in the future. For the Gospel proclaims only what prophecy has said it would proclaim, so that we may say that it has been ordained by God’s previous decision to be so before it should happen, and thus God alone should receive the glory for this doctrine and not our own merits and endeavors, obviously because this Gospel was ordained before we existed, as it says itself (Prov. 8:23): “Ages ago I was set up, at the first,” that is, in the form of the Law, “before the beginning of the earth,” that is, the church, which was of course created by it [wisdom]. For the Gospel, which is the wisdom and the power of God (1 Cor. 1:24), has established the church and does everything that wisdom in that passage says about itself for its own glory and praise. Thus we read in Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants, the prophets.” And Is. 48:5 says: “I declared them to you from of old,” that is, in the old law, “before they came to pass, I announced them to you, lest you should say, ‘My idols,’ ” that is, the imaginings of my wisdom, “did them, and my molten images commanded them. You have heard,” namely, at the time of the Law and the Prophets; “now see all this,” namely, in the time of grace, etc.

Through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures. He says this to indicate distinction from the promise given before all times, about which he says in Titus 1:2: “Which God, who never lies, promised ages ago.” For this promise is the predestination from eternity of all things to come. But through the prophets the promise is given in time and in human speech. This is a wonderful proof of the grace of God, that above and beyond the eternal promises He gives the promise also in human words, not only in spoken words but also in written ones. All this has been done so that when the promise of God has been fulfilled, it should in these words be apparent that it was His plan to act thus, so that we might recognize that the Christian religion²⁰ is not the result of a blind accident or of a fate determined by stars, as many empty-headed people have arrogantly assumed,²¹ but that it was by God’s definite plan and deliberate predetermination that it should turn out so. And very fittingly he adds, for another reason, in the Holy Scriptures. For if he wanted to say only through His prophets, this could have been interpreted maliciously as if he were claiming the authority of dead people, who, with their words, no longer exist. But in this way he refers expressly to their writings, which are still extant.

3–4. Concerning His Son, who was made for Him of the seed of David according to the flesh and predestined the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This passage has, as far as I know, never been explained correctly or sufficiently by anyone. The exegetes of the ancient church were hindered by an inadequate explanation, and the more recent exegetes were lacking in Spirit. And yet, aided by the efforts of others, we venture to try our minds at it without doing violence to the piety of our faith. I think the meaning of the apostle is the following: The contents, or object, of the Gospel, or—as others²² say—its subject, is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the seed of David according to the flesh and now appointed King and Lord over all things in power, and this according to the Holy Spirit, who has raised Him from the dead. Here the Greek text is very helpful, which reads as follows: “Concerning His Son, made of the seed of David, who was chosen,²³ or designated, declared, ordained, etc., to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ, our Lord.” Now let us look at the individual expressions. Concerning His Son. This is the Gospel, which deals not merely with the Son of God in general but with Him who has become incarnate and is of the seed of David. In effect he says: “He has emptied Himself and has become weak. He who was before all and created everything now has a beginning Himself and has been made.” But the Gospel speaks not only of the humiliation of the Son of God, by which He emptied Himself, but also of His glory and the power which after His humiliation He received from God in His humanity. In other words, just as the Son of God became the Son of David by humbling and emptying Himself in the weakness of the flesh, so on the other hand the Son of David, though weak according to the flesh, has now in turn been established and designated the Son of God in all power and glory. And as according to His divine form He emptied Himself (Phil. 2:7) to the point of the nothingness of the flesh by being born into the world, so in the form of a servant He has brought Himself to completion to the point of fullness of divine essence by ascending into heaven. Observe the fitting expression of the apostle. He does not say: “He who was made the Son of God in power,” in the same way as he says: “He who was made according to the flesh.” For from the very beginning of Christ’s conception, on account of the union of the two natures, it has been correct to say: “This God is the Son of David, and this Man is the Son of God.” The first is correct because His Godhead was emptied and hidden in the flesh. The second is correct because His humanity has been completed and translated to divine being. But even though it is true that He was not made the Son of God, but only the Son of Man, nevertheless, one and the same Person has always been the Son and is the Son of God even then.

But this fact was not chosen, declared, and ordained so far as men were concerned. He had already received power over all things and was the Son of God, but as yet He was not exercising that power and was not recognized as that Son of God. This was brought about only through the Spirit of sanctification. The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. “He will glorify Me,” He says (John 16:14). It was through the apostles that the Holy Spirit designated and declared that He was now the Son of God with power over all things, that all things were subject to Him, and that God the Father had made Him Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 2:36). That is the point which the expression predestined the Son of God wants to make. This Man, the Son of David according to the flesh, is now publicly declared the Son of God in power, that is, over all things. For as the Son of David He was weak and subject to all things. All this was done according to the Spirit of sanctification. To Him is attributed the glorification of Christ, as stated above. But the Holy Spirit did this only after the resurrection of Christ. Therefore he adds by the resurrection from the dead, because the Spirit was not given before the resurrection of Christ. From this statement it is clear that the text has been poorly translated with predestined, because the Greek original text reads ὁρισθέντος, that is, “designated,” from which we derive “designation” and “determination.” By derivation the schools use ὁρισμός for the definition, delineation, and determination of something about which it is declared, set forth, and indicated that it is to be held and believed. For a “designation” is an announcement and declaration of something. Thus also this passage must be understood in this way: Christ is declared in the Gospel by the Holy Spirit and manifested as the Son of God in power over all things. Before the resurrection this was not revealed and manifested but hidden in the flesh of Christ. And when it says the Spirit of sanctification instead of “the Holy Spirit,” that does not change matters much. In view of His effect, the same Spirit is called “Holy Spirit” and “Spirit of sanctification.” Also when the text says in power, it must be understood of the power over all things, according to the prophecy in Ps. 8:6 and in Heb. 1:2: “Whom He appointed the heir of all things.”

Let us summarize: The Gospel deals with His Son, who was born of the seed of David but now has been manifested as the Son of God with power over all things through the Holy Spirit, given from the resurrection of the dead, even Jesus Christ, our Lord. See, there you have it: The Gospel is the message concerning Christ, the Son of God, who was first humbled and then glorified through the Holy Spirit. To be sure, the genitive of Jesus Christ, our Lord is ambiguous. It can be taken either as a genitive or an ablative, because the Greek text cannot be determined with certainty. If genitive,²⁴ it must be combined with the word resurrection in this way: by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. If ablative, it belongs to the words concerning His Son, who was born. And if our translation²⁵ reads “of the dead,” it obscures the meaning, although it leaves it much the same. Therefore we think that it is better to translate sense for sense rather than word for word: from the dead.

Corollary

The Gospel is not only what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have written. This is clear enough from this passage. For it states expressly that the Gospel is the Word concerning the Son of God, who became flesh, suffered, and was glorified. Therefore, no matter who writes and teaches it, whether Matthew or Thomas, and no matter in what words or tongues, it is the same Gospel of God. It does not make any difference how many books and writers teach it, because it is all the same thing that all are teaching. Therefore the remarks of the apostle concerning a certain disciple, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the churches” (2 Cor. 8:18), are not necessarily to be interpreted as referring to the Gospel of St. Luke but rather in this way, that his reputation was in the proclamation of the Gospel, that is, the Word of God. Thus also Apollos²⁶ and others were esteemed in a similar way, that is, because they knew how to proclaim Christ in eloquent and thoughtful words.

In the same way also the expression “according to my Gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8) does not have to be understood as referring to the Gospel of St. Luke, as if Luke had written down what Paul preached or as if what the former had written down the latter preached. But he says “my Gospel” because he himself preached the message that was the Word of God concerning His Son, as he says here.

16. For it is the power of God. It should be noted that the word virtus here is understood as “strength,” or “power,” as Möglichkeit in the colloquial sense, “possibility.” And power of God is understood not as the power by which according to His essence He is powerful but the power by virtue of which He makes powerful and strong. As one says “the gift of God,” “the creature of God,” or “the things of God,” so one also says the power of God, that is, the power that comes from God, as we read in Acts 4:33: “And with great power the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ”; and in Acts 1:8: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” And in the last chapter of Luke (24:49) we read: “Until you are clothed with power from on high”; also in Luke 1:35: “The power of the Most High will overshadow you.”

In the second place, we should note that it says the power of God in distinction from “the power of men.” The latter is the power by which man gains strength and health according to the flesh and by which he is able to do the things which are of the flesh. But this power God completely canceled by the cross of Christ in order to give His own power, by which the spirit becomes strong and is saved and by which one is able to do the things of the spirit, Ps. 60:11–12: “Vain is the help of man. With God we shall do valiantly.” And Ps. 32:16 f.: “A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his own great strength. The war horse is a vain hope for victory; and by its great might it cannot be saved.” It is the same to say: “The Gospel is the power of God,” that is, the Gospel is the power of the Spirit, or the riches, weapons, adornments, and every good thing of the Spirit, from whom it has all its power, and this from God. It is as the saying goes: Riches, weapons, gold, silver, kingdoms, and other things of this kind are the power of men, by which they manage to do what they do and without which they cannot do anything. But all this, as I said, must completely come to naught, at least as far as the desire of it is concerned. Otherwise the power of God will not be in us. For the rich and the powerful do not receive the Gospel. Therefore they do not receive the power of God, for it is written: “To the poor the Gospel is preached” (Luke 7:22), and, as Ps. 49:6 has it: “Men who trust in their own strength and boast of the abundance of their riches.”

Therefore it must be noted in the third place that he who does not truly believe is even today not merely ashamed of the Gospel, but he also contradicts it, at least in his heart and in his action. The reason for this is the following. He who finds pleasure and enjoyment in the things that are of the flesh and of the world cannot have a taste or pleasure for the things that are of the Spirit of God. Therefore he is not only ashamed to proclaim the Gospel to others, but he fights against it and does not want it to be spoken to him. He hates the light and loves the darkness. For this reason he does not suffer the salutary truth to be spoken to him. Moreover, to be ashamed of the Gospel is a fault of cowardice in pastors, but to contradict it and not to listen to it is a fault of stupidity in church members. This is obvious when the preacher is afraid of the power, influence, and number of his hearers and is silent concerning the essential truth and when the unresponsive hearer despises the lowliness and humble appearance of the Word. Thus it becomes foolishness to him and an insane thing, as I Cor. 2:14 says: “The natural man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God. For they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them,” and Rom. 8:7: “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot.” Thus we arrive at the conclusion: He who believes in the Gospel must become weak and foolish before men so that he may be strong and wise in the power and wisdom of God, as I Cor. 1:27, 25 tells us: “The weak and foolish things of the world God chose that He might confound the strong and wise. The weakness and foolishness of God is stronger and wiser than men.” Therefore, when you hear that the power of God is soon rejected, you must recognize this as a manifestation of the power of men, or of the world and the flesh. Thus all power and wisdom and righteousness must be hidden and buried and not apparent, altogether according to the image and likeness of Christ, who emptied Himself so that He might completely hide His power, wisdom, and goodness and instead put on weakness, foolishness, and hardship. In the same way he who is powerful, wise, and attractive must have these things as if he did not have them. For this reason the life of the princes of this world, of lawyers, and of all those who have to maintain their position by power and wisdom is threatened by the gravest dangers. For when these advantages do not become apparent and are hidden even to the smallest extent, the people themselves count for nothing. But when they are present, then “there is death in the pot” (2 Kings 4:40), especially if they enjoy it in their hearts that these things are on display before men and are esteemed by them. For it is difficult to hide from your own heart and to despise what is apparent to everyone else and is highly esteemed.

17. The righteousness of God is revealed. In human teachings the righteousness of man is revealed and taught, that is, who is and becomes righteous before himself and before other people and how this takes place. Only in the Gospel is the righteousness of God²⁷ revealed (that is, who is and becomes righteous before God and how this takes place) by faith alone, by which the Word of God is believed, as it is written in the last chapter of Mark (16:16): “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” For the righteousness of God is the cause of salvation. And here again, by the righteousness of God we must not understand the righteousness by which He is righteous in Himself but the righteousness by which we are made righteous by God. This happens through faith in the Gospel. Therefore blessed Augustine writes in chapter 11 of On the Spirit and the Letter: “It is called the righteousness of God because by imparting it He makes righteous people, just as ‘Deliverance belongs to the Lord’²⁸ refers to that by which He delivers.”²⁹ Augustine says the same thing in chapter 9 of the same book. The righteousness of God is so named to distinguish it from the righteousness of man, which comes from works, as Aristotle describes it very clearly in Book III of his Ethics.³⁰ According to him, righteousness follows upon actions and originates in them. But according to God, righteousness precedes works, and thus works are the result of righteousness, just as no person can do the works of a bishop or priest unless he is first consecrated and has been set apart for this. Righteous works of people who are not yet righteous are like the works of a person who performs the functions of a priest and bishop without being a priest; in other words, such works are foolish and tricky and are to be compared with the antics of hucksters in the marketplace.

Second, we must note that what is said here, from faith to faith, is interpreted in different ways. Lyra wants it understood thus: “From unformed faith to formed faith.”³¹ But this won’t work, because no righteous person lives from an “unformed faith,” neither does the righteousness of God come from it. Yet he says both of these things in this passage. It could be that he wants to understand the “unformed faith” as the faith of a beginner and the “formed faith” as the faith of a perfect believer. But the “unformed faith” is no faith at all but rather the object of faith. I do not believe that a person can believe with an “unformed faith.” But this he can do well: He can see what must be believed and thus remain in suspense.³²

Others interpret it in this way: “From the faith of the fathers of the old law to the faith of the new law.”³³ This exegesis may be acceptable, even though it may obviously be attacked and contradicted by the argument that the righteous person does not live by the faith of past generations, even though he says: “The righteous shall live by his faith.” The fathers believed the same as we do. There is only one faith, even though it may have been less clear then; just as educated people now believe the same things as the uneducated, but more clearly. Therefore, the meaning of this passage seems to be: The righteousness of God is completely from faith, but in such a way that through its development it does not make its appearance but becomes a clearer faith according to that expression in 2 Cor. 3:18: “We are being changed … from one degree of glory to another,” and also in Ps. 84:8: “They go from strength to strength.” So also “from faith to faith,” by growing more and more, so that “he that is righteous, let him be made righteous still” (Rev. 22:11). In other words, no one should be of the opinion that he has already obtained (Phil. 3:12) and thus stops growing, that is, starts declining. Blessed Augustine says in chapter 11 of his On the Spirit and the Letter: “From the faith of those who confess with their mouth to the faith of those who are obedient.”³⁴ Paul of Burgos says: “From the faith of the synagog (as a starting point) to the faith of the church (as a goal).”³⁵ But the apostle says that righteousness comes from faith, yet the heathen had no faith from which they could have been led to another faith in order to be justified.

19. What is known about God. This is a Greek way of expressing what might be better translated in our language in an abstract way; “the known things of God,” that is, “the knowledge of God,”³⁶ just as we read in 1 Cor. 1:25: “The weak things of God are stronger than men, and the foolish things of God are wiser than men,” that is, the weakness and foolishness of God is stronger, more powerful, and wiser than the strength and the power and the wisdom of men. All of this is said of God not because it is in Him but because it comes to us from Him and is in us. Thus the foolishness and weakness of God is the same as the life according to the Gospel, by which God makes us appear foolish and weak before men in our external being. But the wisdom and the power of God is the life according to the Gospel, or the very rule of the life of the Gospel, by which He makes us wise and strong before Himself and looks upon us as such in our inner man. Thus the whole matter shows an exchange. The weakness and foolishness of God before men is wisdom and power before God, and vice versa, the wisdom and power of the world is weakness and foolishness and even death before God, as chapter 6 below tells us.

18. For the wrath of God is revealed. The apostle directs his chief attack against the powerful and the wise of the world because if they have been humbled, their followers and the uneducated will also easily be humbled, but also because they have opposed the Gospel and the word and the life of the cross of Christ and have incited others against it. Therefore he imputes guilt and sin to them as if they were the only ones who are guilty and announces the wrath of God upon them.

To no one does the preaching of the cross appear so foolish as to philosophers and men of power because it is completely contrary to them and their sensitivities.

20. From the creation. Some people (and, if I am not mistaken, also the writer of the Sentences, Book I, Distinction II)³⁷ interpret this to mean: “By the creature of the world,” that is, by man, “God’s invisible things are seen.” But this can easily be rejected on the basis of the Greek text, where we read: “Ever since the creation of the world,” or as Matt. 25:34 has it: “From the foundation of the world.” Or this way: “From the creation of the world” (that is “ever since creation of the world,” not only from the present time on) it has always been true that God’s invisible nature is seen and recognized in His works, as will be seen below.³⁸ Therefore the meaning is: Even if the wise of this world did not perceive the creation of the world, they could have recognized the invisible things of God from the works of the created world, namely, by taking as Word and Scripture those works that testify of God. 1 Cor. 1:21 tells us: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” This seems to be contradicted here by the statement that they have come to know God. But this apparent contradiction is immediately resolved farther on: Even though they knew God, “they did not see fit to acknowledge God,” that is, by their actions they gave the appearance of not knowing Him.

To gain a clearer understanding, we should note that the apostle with these words does not rebuke the Romans only, as many believe. He rebukes not individuals but all people, Gentiles and Romans alike. This can be seen very clearly from the words of the apostle later in Rom. 3:9: “We have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” He does not exempt anyone, since he says “all.” Therefore we must interpret this passage to mean that the apostle, as he writes, sees before his eyes the whole world as one body. The members of this body have not individually done all the sins that the apostle charges them with here, because they are individually different. But all the members have done all these things, some this, some that, so that he shows that all the faults mentioned here were present in that body and not in the head only. Without a doubt, not all the Romans did all these things, neither did all the Gentiles, but because they were people living outside of Christ, they were members of that body and are thus rebuked together with all the others. This is the way of Scripture according to the second and fourth rule of interpretation of Scripture, that is, it proceeds from a part to the whole, and, vice versa, from the species to the genus.³⁹ Scripture speaks in one breath about the good and the evil and does it in the same way. It accuses the former harshly and punishes them together with the evil. On the other hand it blesses and nurtures the evil together with the good. This rule everyone must observe who speaks to a community in which certainly not all men are burdened with the same guilt or are equally praiseworthy, as experience obviously shows. But he rebukes the Romans and the educated people more harshly because they are, and have been, the leaders of the world on the basis of their leadership, power, and knowledge. Therefore he begins with them at the head (in analogy to the order of Baptism) and gradually goes down to the others until he finally includes all when he says (Rom. 1:29): “Filled with all manner of wickedness, etc.”

Moral Rule.⁴⁰ According to this, he teaches that preachers of the Gospel should rebuke first and foremost the leaders of the people. To be sure, this must not be done in their own words, which they invent in sick and disturbed minds, but in the words of the Gospel, that is, by showing how and where they live and act contrary to the Gospel. But there are nowadays only few such faithful workers. So John the Baptist is believed to have poured water on our Lord from the head down, not water which he himself had procured, but the water of the Jordan. Take note of this mystery, that you may not proclaim the Gospel in a fit of anger.

Thus the letter of Paul (as it ought to be with all preaching of the Word of God) is like a stream that flows from Paradise and is like the Nile, which inundates all of Egypt. But this inundation must have its source somewhere. Thus the flood which the Lord creates through the apostle Paul covers the whole world and all people. But it begins to enter from the head and the higher authorities of this world and gradually flows on to others. This must be carefully noted. Otherwise, if we follow Lyra and his school, this letter will be very difficult, and there will be no connection between what follows below and what has been said above. For Lyra states that in the first chapter only the Romans are being rebuked (the position supported also by his prolog), and yet in what follows it is necessary to think that all nations are meant, yes, the whole mass of lost humanity. But the apostle is interested in revealing Christ as the Savior of all men, not only as the Savior of the Romans and of the Jews living in Rome, though it is true that he wants to reveal Him primarily to them, but with them also to others.

19. Because God has shown it to them. With these words Paul makes it clear that also all gifts of nature must be credited to God as the Giver. The fact that he is speaking here of the natural knowledge of God is clear from the following addition, in which he shows how God has manifested Himself to men, namely, thus (v. 20): For the invisible things of Him ever since the creation of the world are clearly seen in the things that have been made (these things are recognized in a natural way by their effects), that is, from the beginning of the world it has always been true that the “invisible things of God, etc.” He states this so no one should quibble and say that only in our time could God be known. He could be, and can be, known from the beginning of the world.

But in order that the apostle might be understood more clearly in these arguments, I shall try to present for my fellow spectators a playlet according to my understanding and then await either their approval or their criticism.

That to all people, and especially to idolaters, clear knowledge of God was available, as he says here, so that they are without excuse and it can be proved that they had known the invisible things of God, His divinity, likewise His eternal being and power, becomes apparent from the following: All those who set up idols and worship them and call them “gods,” or even “God,” believing that God is immortal, that is, eternal, powerful, and able to render help, clearly indicate that they have a knowledge of divinity in their hearts. For with what reason could they call an image or any other created thing God, or how could they believe that it resembled Him if they did not know at all what God is and what pertains to Him? How could they attribute such qualities to a rock or to Him whom they thought to be like a rock, if they did not believe that these qualities were really suitable for Him? When they now hold that divinity is invisible (a quality to be sure, which they have assigned to many gods) and that he who possesses it is invisible, immortal, powerful, wise, just, and gracious to those who call upon him, when they hold fast to this idea so that they confess it also by works, by calling upon him, worshiping and adoring him of whom they think that divinity resides in him, then it follows most surely that they had a knowledge or notion of divinity which undoubtedly came to them from God, as our text tells us. This was their error, that they did not worship this divinity untouched but changed and adjusted it to their desires and needs. Everyone wanted to see the divinity in the one who appealed to him, and so they changed the truth of God into a lie. Thus they knew that the nature of divinity, or of God, is that He is powerful, invisible, just, immortal, and good. They knew the invisible things of God, His eternal power and divinity. This major premise of the “practical syllogism,”⁴¹ this theological “insight of the conscience,” is in all men and cannot be obscured. But in the minor premise they erred when they said and claimed: “Now, this one,” that is, Jupiter or any other who is like this image, “is of this type, etc.” This is where the error began and produced idolatry, for everyone wanted to subsume according to his own interests. If they had stayed with this feeling and had said: “Look, we know this: Whoever this God, or this Divinity, may be whose nature is to be immortal and powerful and able to hear those who call upon Him, let us worship and adore Him, let us not call Him Jupiter and say that He is like this or that image, but let us simply worship Him, no matter who He is (for He must have being),” then without a doubt they would have been saved, even though they had not recognized Him as the Creator of heaven and earth or taken note of any other specific work of His hands. You see, this is the meaning of the words “The things that are known of God are manifest in them.” But where and how? Answer: The invisible things of God are clearly seen in the things that have been made. One can see how one man helps another, one animal another, yes, how one thing helps and assists another, according as it has superior power and ability. At all times the higher and the more privileged one helps or suppresses the lower and less privileged one. Therefore, there must be that in the universe which is above all and helps all. People measure God by the blessings they receive. This is also the reason why people in ancient times made gods of those who showed them benevolence. In this way they wanted to thank them, as Pliny says.⁴²

21. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, etc. If they did not honor Him as God, or as if He were God, did they honor Him in a different way than as God? Apparently the apostle wants to say this, and the following passage agrees with this meaning:

23. And exchanged the glory, etc. That means: They worshiped Him not as God but in the likeness of an image, and so they worshiped not God but a figment of their own imagination. I should be glad to agree with this interpretation, because even the Children of Israel were charged with having worshiped Baal and calves, even though it is clear that with these images and symbols they wanted to worship the true God, but this they were forbidden to do.

But how many people are there even today who worship God not as God but as something that they have imagined in their own hearts! Just look at all our strange, superstitious practices, products of utter vanity. Or is it not exchanging the glory of God into the likeness of an image and fanciful figure if you refuse to do the things which it is your duty to do and if you honor Him with a work which you have chosen yourself and in so doing you imagine God is the kind who has regard for you and your ways, as if He were different from the way He has revealed Himself to you by giving you commandments? Thus even today many people are being given up to their own base mind,⁴³ as we see and hear.

We can also simply say: “They did not honor Him as God,” that is, they did not honor Him as it was fitting for them to render to Him honor and thanks. The word “not” denies the act of honoring Him as it would have been fitting. But if “not” negates the adverb “as,” then according to the first interpretation the act of glorifying is admitted and the manner that would have been proper is denied. What follows can be applied conveniently to both interpretations.

Now look at the order and the various levels of perdition. The first level is ingratitude, or the omission of gratitude. Thus Lucifer was ungrateful to his Creator before his fall.⁴⁴ Self-satisfaction is responsible for this, for it takes pleasure in things received as though they were not received at all, and it leaves the Giver out of consideration. The second level is vanity. One feasts on oneself and on all of creation and enjoys the things that bring profit. Thus one becomes of necessity vain “in his thoughts,” that is, in his plans, endeavors, and ambitions. For whatever one seeks in and through these gifts is completely vain. One seeks only himself, that is, one’s own glory, delight, and advantage. The third level is blindness. Bereft of truth and given over to vanity, a person becomes necessarily blind in his whole heart and in all his thoughts, because he has turned completely away from God. Since he is then lodged in darkness, what else can he do except the things for which an erring man or a fool strives ? For a blind man errs very easily, yes, he errs all the time. And so the fourth level is the error over against God. This is the worst. It leads directly to idolatry. To have arrived at this point means to have arrived at the abyss. For when a person has lost God, nothing remains except that he be given over to every type of turpitude according to the will of the devil. The result is that deluge of evils and blood-letting of which the apostle goes on to speak in the following passages.

By the same steps people also today arrive at spiritual idolatry of a more refined type, which at present is widespread. Here they worship God not as He is but as they imagine and think Him to be. Lack of gratitude and love of vanity (that is, a notion of their own importance and righteousness, or, as it is also called, “pious intentions”) blind people to such an extent that they are incorrigible and therefore are unable to believe anything but that they are doing extremely well and that they are pleasing to God. And for this reason they fashion a gracious God for themselves, although He is not so. Thus they worship the figment of their imagination more truly than the true God, for they believe that the latter is like the product of their imagination. And therefore “they change Him into a likeness of their imagination,” the offspring of a heart that is carnally wise and corruptible. See what great evil this lack of gratitude is! It brings along a love of vanity, which produces blindness; this in turn results in idolatry, and idolatry leads to a whirlpool of vices. On the other hand, gratitude retains the love for God, and thus the heart remains directed toward God. It therefore becomes enlightened, and once enlightened, it worships only the true God, and to this worship of God the whole chorus of virtues⁴⁵ is then added.

24. Therefore God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts. This “giving up” is not only a permission but a commission and order of God. This is made clear in the last chapter of First Kings (1 Kings 22:22), where the Lord says to the lying spirit that he should entice Ahab, the king of Israel: “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.” Then follows the word of the prophet addressed to the same king: “Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” Similarly, in 2 Sam. 16:10–11 David said of him who cursed him: “The Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David,’ … Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him.” In the same way the Lord also commands the devil and the flesh to tempt and overwhelm the man who has deserved it in the eyes of the Lord because of his wickedness. If someone should object that God prohibits evil and therefore does not surrender anyone to evil, that is, that He does not raise up evil to let it reign and triumph and never commands that this should happen, the answer is: This is indeed true when God acts in goodness, but when He punishes in severity, He makes those who are evil sin even more against His commandments in order to punish them all the more. To bring these two statements into harmony with each other, the “giving up” here on the part of the man who is being “given up” is a matter of permission, for God withdraws His helping hand from him and deserts him. Then the devil, who is constantly waiting for such an occasion, receives, or thinks he has received, God’s authority and command. In this sense it is an order from God. It is certainly not correct to accuse God of ordering man to do evil; but He deserts him so that he is no longer able to resist the devil, who for this purpose has the command and will of God on his side. Whatever we may say about this, it is God’s will that that man be overwhelmed by sin. But it is also the will of His good pleasure because He ordains that the man should be overwhelmed by the very thing that God hates most. He makes him a slave to that which He means to punish most harshly. For it is the greatest severity to surrender someone into the hands of him whom you hate most. From this it does not follow that God wills sin, even though He wills that it be done, but it follows that He does not will it at all and that He hates it. For He wills that it be done in order to subject man to what He hates most, so that man may recognize how great the wrath of God’s severity is that is hanging over his head, that God would rather let that be done which He hates most, just to punish him. For there is nothing worse than sin. Therefore in order to subject to it a man who is already in the worst way, God permits that to be done which He always forbids. Therefore God wills that sin be done not for its own sake but for the sake of penalty and punishment. Just as a sinner does not want to sin for sin’s sake—he would prefer that sin did not exist at all—but for the sake of the good that seems to be in it, so God does not will sin for sin’s sake—for He, too, does not will it and hates all that is sin—but for the sake of punishment and of the evil that is contained in it. He is more interested in the punishment than in sin.

But to will such things is God’s prerogative alone. He is not forced not to will that there be sin, although by nature He can neither will it nor love it, but He can will and love it not as sin but as punishment. So a father detests dirt and stain on his son, yet when his son gives serious offense, he chooses the dirt, not to please himself but openly to disgrace his son with it. Therefore the conclusion of those who claim that God loves and wills evil is an oversimplification. Still more stupid are those who deny that God wills evil only so that no one can force them to admit that He sins.

God is indeed measuring with just measure when He chooses the evil that is inherent in sin to punish man with it, for thus He chooses what is good in sin. But the punishment is (not, as Lyra thinks, the sin itself per accidens [“incidentally”] but) the vileness of the sin. It hurts to be, or to have been, subjected to such vile sins. This the apostle states clearly when he says (Rom. 1:24): “Therefore God gave them up to sin to dishonor their own bodies.” For there is no shameful punishment at all if it is not what happens when one is thrust into sin. It is more shameful to lie in vile sin than in any other kind of punishment whatsoever. Therefore it is not correct, as Lyra says, that the sin is per accidens the punishment of sin for this reason, that the withdrawal of the grace of God presumably is the punishment and on that account the man commits sin. Not so! Not so! But sin, or rather the shame which is connected with sin, is itself the punishment of God, not the withdrawal of God’s grace. This is what God intends. It is true, He hates sin, yet because He cannot bring about the shame He wills unless sin is committed, He wills that man should commit sin so that that shame may come over him. If it were somehow possible that such shame could become a reality without sin, God would make use of this possibility and prohibit the sin. But this possibility does not exist.

Corollary

This sentence is correct: God wills evil, or sins. Also that other sentence is correct: God knows the meaning of evil, or sins.⁴⁶ But people say in surprise: “The whole Scripture says that God does not will evil and that He hates evildoers. You have a contradiction here.”⁴⁷ Answer: That God wills evil is understood in a dual sense (that is, that evil springs from His own will in the same way in which man wills evil—this is impossible with God). He wills evil in a different way. It remains outside of Him, and a creature commits it, either a man or a demon. This is true. If God did not want it to happen, it would not happen.⁴⁸ And vice versa, He does not will the good because, while He wills that all of us should be bound to His laws, yet He does not will that all fulfill them. Therefore all these statements are true: God wills evil, God wills the good; God does not will evil, and God does not will the good. But here they loudly object⁴⁹ that a free will is involved in guilt. This objection means nothing to theology in depth.⁵⁰ It is true that these statements contain the most subtle secrets of theology, such as ought not to be treated in the presence of simple and unlearned people but only among experts. For the former can receive only milk and not this very strong wine, or else they could fall into the abyss of blasphemous thoughts. How these two statements agree and according to which judgment they are correct, namely, that God wills that I and all others should be under obligation and yet gives grace only to whom He wills, and gives it not to all but reserves for Himself an election among them—this, I say, we shall see in the life to come. But for the present it is for us to believe that this is just, for faith is the conviction of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). At the same time it is true that God never wills any sin merely for the sake of sin. But it is rather this way: some He does not will nor like to justify, so that through them He may show forth so much greater glory in the elect. Thus also sin He wills for the sake of something else, that is, for the sake of His glory and for the sake of the elect. This becomes clear below, when he states that God raised up Pharaoh and hardened his heart in order to show forth His power in him (cf. Rom. 9:17). Again He says: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (Rom. 9:15; Ex. 33:19). Thus also through the fall of the Jews salvation came to the Gentiles. In order to show His mercy to the Gentiles more clearly, God caused them to fall (cf. Rom. 11:11). For how could they be evil and do evil unless He permitted it? And how could He permit it unless He willed it? He does not do this against His will. He permits it willingly. He wills it so that the opposite good may shine forth so much more brightly. Now they growl⁵¹ that these people are condemned without guilt because they are bound to laws which they cannot fulfill, or because they are required to do the impossible. The apostle answers: “O man, who are you to answer back to God?” (cf. Rom. 9:20). For if your argument holds water, then it follows that there is no need to preach, pray, exhort, yes, even for Christ to die. But this is not the way in which God has predestined the elect to be saved; He has done so through all these means (cf. Rom. 8:29, 33–34). But more about this later.

From this text we may therefore deduce that if someone surrenders to these passions, it is a sure sign that he has left the worship of God and has worshiped an idol, or he has turned the truth of God into a lie (cf. Rom. 1:25). Those who do not “see fit to acknowledge God” (Rom. 1:28) are branded in this way, that they are permitted to fall into all kinds of vices. And if such terrible portents are in abundant evidence at the present time, it is a sure sign that idolatry is rampant, on a spiritual level, I mean. It is bad enough to change the glory of God into the likeness of an image. This is the sin of blindness, of lack of knowledge, or of an erring heart. But it is still worse if one does not only err in this way but in the perversion of one’s heart also worships those images and adores a creature. But it is less serious “not to acknowledge God.” Therefore the apostle distinguishes between these three types of people who have been given up: The first have been given up to uncleanness (Rom. 1:24 f.), the second to unnatural lusts (Rom. 1:28 f.), and the third to “improper conduct” (Rom. 1:28), or what is not right. In the case of the persons belonging to the third type their perversion is not surprising. For where there is no interest in having the knowledge of God, there also the fear of God is of necessity lacking. And where that is lacking, there is an inclination toward all kinds of sins. But as far as the first and second groups are concerned, the question arises why just this penalty should be imposed for their type of sin. The answer is: Just as those who worship God and look to Him are credited with the highest purity of the heart—for this is required if they want to know God and worship Him—so it is only fair conversely that those who do not acknowledge God, or do not want to acknowledge Him, should be catapulted into the lowest and the worst uncleanness, that they have not only an unclean heart (which is the result of their idolatry) but also an unclean body, that those who in their hearts do not want to be clean should also be unclean in their bodies. For as the soul is in relation to God so the flesh ought also to be in relation to the soul, uncleanness to uncleanness, cleanness to cleanness. And as they have not glorified God, neither in their hearts nor in their actions, but have instead transferred His glory to something else and have thus become filled with shame in their hearts, so it is only fair that they should also bring shame upon their own bodies and likewise upon others on their bodies [so those who do not give glory to God must bring shame upon themselves, both upon their own person and upon one another].⁵² Thus in the place of glory they must receive shame for two reasons: first, because they put God on their own level and changed Him to their likeness, they had to suffer the shame of uncleanness; second, because they transferred their worship of God to something else, they had to suffer shame in their external bodies, one against another. For what is more just than that those who do not want the glory of God should suffer shame, not only in their hearts (for this is idolatry) but also in their bodies?

However, it must be noted that the sense of the apostle’s statement is not that all who are guilty of idolatry have done these monstrous acts but, as he stated repeatedly, that many of them have. Some have done this and others that. But all the acts together became objects of God’s vengeance against them. Without a doubt there were many (such as certain Roman consuls) who were not given up to such monstrous vices, since many of them have a reputation for admirable chastity and virtue, and yet they were idolaters.

We should also not think that the apostle wants the three ways of being “given up” which he delineates understood as necessarily being done in different persons. On the contrary, it could happen that some people were given up to all three vices, some to only one, others to two, each according to the judgment of God. For the apostle is interested to show that all were sinners and needed the grace of Christ. Even if the individuals did not commit all the vices, yet, because they individually were idolaters, they were (at least in the eyes of God) the accomplices and equals of all the others who had been given up in the worst condemnation. Against them also the beginning of the second chapter seems to be directed, as if they had been sitting in judgment against the others and yet had done exactly the same things, though not all of them.

To uncleanness to the dishonoring of their own bodies among themselves. From the apostle this vice gets the name uncleanness and effeminacy. Thus we read in 1 Cor. 6:9: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, … nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexuals, etc., will inherit the kingdom of God”; and in Eph. 5:3: “All uncleanness, or covetousness, must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints”; and in 2 Cor. 12:21: “They have not repented of the uncleanness, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.” He also calls this a dishonor, or shame; for as the nobility of the body (at least in this respect) consists in chastity and continence, or at least in the proper use of the body, so its shame is in its unnatural misuse. As it adds to the splendor of a golden vessel when it is used for exquisite wine, but it contributes to its inelegance when it is used as a container for dirt and refuse, so also our body (in this respect) is ordained either for an honorable marriage or for an even more honorable chastity. But it is dishonored in the most shameful way when it not only violates marriage and chastity but also soils itself with that disgrace which is even worse.

The uncleanness, or effeminacy, is every intentional and individual pollution that can be brought about in various ways: through excessive passion from shameful thoughts, through rubbing with hands, through fondling of another’s body, especially a woman’s, through indecent movements, etc. I have called it “intentional” in order to differentiate it from the pollution that takes place during the night and sometimes during the day and the waking hours, but which happens to many people involuntarily. Such things are not intended. I have called it “individual,” for when it becomes heterosexual or homosexual intercourse, it has a different name.

Rule: When a young person has no spark of reverence for God in his heart but goes his way without a thought about God, I can hardly believe that he is chaste. For as he must live either by the flesh or by the spirit, either his flesh or his spirit must be afire. There is no better victory over the burning of the flesh than to have the heart flee and turn away from it in devout prayer. Where the flame of the spirit is burning, the flesh soon cools off and becomes cold, and vice versa.

25. And worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. The reason for the second “being given up”⁵³ is the idolatry in works, as the reason for the first was spiritual idolatry in which people equated God with images. The punishment for this is so much greater, because the guilt is greater. For the shame is greater as it is passed on also to others, so that one defiles one’s body not merely in himself but also in another person’s body. Therefore also the guilt is greater, for now the error of idolatry and of an empty valuation of God is not only in the mind but also in hand and deed, an example, a temptation, and an offense for others. If these people, so far as they are concerned, disgrace God (regardless of their reverence for His majesty) by thinking thoughts about Him that are less worthy than He is, it is right and proper that this should fall back on their own heads and that they should think, and also act, less worthily concerning themselves than is proper. But alas, even now very many people think in an unworthy way about God and claim in bold and impudent treatises that God is this way or that way. Not one of them is willing to give to God so much honor that he puts His exceedingly great majesty above his own judgment and understanding. Instead they so raise their own opinion to the skies that they judge God with no more trouble or fear than a poor cobbler judges his leather. They presumptuously assure us that in God, in His righteousness, and in His mercy things are exactly as they imagine them, and although they completely lack the Spirit that searches even the depths of God,⁵⁴ they act as if they were filled to the point of intoxication. These are the heretics, the Jews, men of conceit, and all those who are outside the grace of God, for no one can think correctly about God unless God’s Spirit is within him. Without Him he teaches and judges falsely, whether it concerns the righteousness and mercy of God or whether he makes a statement about himself or about others, for God’s Spirit must give testimony to our spirit.⁵⁵

The third way of “being given up” (which in comparison to the other is less shameful) has its basis in the lack of understanding of God, for

28. They did not see fit to acknowledge God. On account of this guilt men have been given up to various vices, that is, various and many are the vices to which, or to some of which, God has given all of them or some of them up. For they were not all murderers or involved in all the other vices, for God does not give up all people in the same way in order to punish them, even though they have sinned in the same way. The reason for this is God’s hidden judgment and the fact that one man does some good at the same time and the other does nothing or less than nothing. God wants to silence every impudent mouth so that no one immediately presumes to give God a rule according to which He ought to punish a given sin or reward a good deed. Therefore God permits people to sin and yet has mercy on one person and pardons him, while He hardens the heart of the other and condemns him. By the same token He lets some people do good deeds and live a good life, and yet He rejects and casts out one person and takes in another person and crowns him.

29. Filled with all unrighteousness. This is the way the Greek text reads, and not “filled with all iniquity.”⁵⁶ In Holy Scriptures, however, there is (if one were to pay attention to the agreement of our translation⁵⁷ with the Hebrew) the following difference between “unrighteousness” and “iniquity.” Unrighteousness is the sin of unbelief, the lack of the righteousness that comes from faith, for as we read in Rom. 1:17, Mark 16:16, and in many other passages, he who believes is righteous, he who does not believe is unrighteous. Thus a man who does not believe also does not obey, and he who does not obey is unrighteous. For disobedience is the essence of unrighteousness and the essence of sin, according to the statement of Ambrose, “Sin is disobedience to the heavenly commandments.”⁵⁸ “Iniquity,” however, means the sin of self-righteousness, which man chooses for himself in his foolish zeal. Concerning it Matt. 7:23 says: “Depart from me, you that work iniquity,” although in the same place the great deeds which they have done in the name of Christ are mentioned. Therefore we can simply say that iniquity consists in neglecting the duty to which you have been bound and instead doing what you think is right. Uprightness, on the contrary, consists in neglecting the things which seem right to you and doing what you ought to do. This is different with lawyers. Iniquity is therefore considered a more relative term or a term of comparison, especially when compared with true righteousness on the one hand and self-righteousness on the other.

Malice. This is the perverse inclination of the mind according to which man tends to do evil and from which he is not recalled even by the good which he has received. More than that, he abuses for evil works all the good gifts which he has received from God or man.

On the other hand, goodness is the inclination of the mind to do good, even though it may be hindered and kept back by wrongs inflicted on it; it uses the evil for the purposes of the good. For not that person is good in spiritual goodness who does good as long as he prospers and nobody opposes him, a practice the goodness of the world is incapable of. In German the precise meaning of bonus is fromm, and that of malus is bose. Therefore we read in Matt. 7:18, “A good tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.” This passage is directed against those fools who try to pass their guilt on to others and say, “I could well be good if I could live in good company, or if I could be relieved of the evil people who molest me.”

Thus also the terms benignitas and malignitas are opposites. Benignitas is a loving disposition and the ability to get along with other people, a kind attitude, that is, a cordial desire of the mind to do good to others and to be indulgent towards them. It is twofold. The first is the perfect Christian type, which remains one and the same in dealing with those who are grateful and with those who are ungrateful. The other is the human, or worldly, type, that is, the imperfect type, which endures only as long as it finds an echo and ceases over against evil and ungrateful people. We read in Matt. 5:48: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and in Luke 6:35: “And you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.” Malignitas, on the other hand, is the perverted and bitter inclination to take vengeance on others and to do evil to them. This, too, is twofold. The first type is the opposite of the heroic, catholic, Christian kindness; from perverseness of heart it inflicts harm even on good and kind people, not only on evil ones. It does not stop doing so even in dealing with benefactors. This is a brutish type of malice. The other is the opposite of our human imperfect benignitas, which seeks revenge and harms others but stops doing so over against those who do good to them. From these considerations we can understand what the apostle writes in Gal. 5:22: “The fruit of the Spirit is goodness and kindness.”

Wickedness. This in essence is the perversion of the mind which happens when a person has opportunity to do good to his fellowman and to ward off evil from him but intentionally does not do it. For thus it seems to be described by blessed Augustine in his book On Order,⁵⁹ where he states that the word nequitia (“wickedness”) is derived from the word nequire (“to be unable”), in the sense that such a person is “unable” to do good, namely, because of iii will. Some people behave this way from envy, others from an overdose of insolence.

31. Dissolute. These are the people who are coarse in word, behavior, and dress and who live in dissolute license and do whatever comes to their minds.

Whisperer (v. 29) and detractor (v. 30) differ in that the detractor undermines the good reputation of another person, but the whisperer sows discord among those who live in harmony by secretly informing one man of one thing and another man of another thing. Every whisperer is double-tongued, but not every detractor is. See Ecclus. 28:15.⁶⁰

CHAPTER TWO

1. Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are.

This text is interpreted in a threefold way. First, it is applied to those who hold the public office of a judge and who on the basis of their office condemn and punish people whom they themselves resemble in evildoing. In this way some want to twist this passage of the apostle to apply to the Romans, insofar as they judged all evildoers the world over, although they themselves suffered from the sin of idolatry and other vices. They say these are the people singled out by the apostle for rebuke, because they were so haughty and relied on their judicial power and were not worried and concerned about the multitude of their own sins.

But I have stated clearly enough above that the apostle means not only the Romans. Therefore this idea is not very convincing, especially since it is forced. I must admit that the apostle’s text can be interpreted as an injunction against those who have been placed into office and that it can be used in the manner of an ordinary proclamation in our churches. But it can be more strikingly directed against those who hold offices in our times, who with a strange madness exercise severe judgment against those who are their subjects, and yet they themselves with impunity perpetrate not lesser crimes but much worse ones. These people the apostle calls and tries to awaken from their deep blindness. Just consider¹ whether both our secular and spiritual leaders are not haughty, seekers of pleasure, adulterers, and, worse than that, thieves, disobedient to God and men, and originators of unjust wars, that is, mass murderers. And yet they continue to punish these crimes most severely in their subjects. But because they have no judge among men, they are careless about themselves. But they will not escape the judgment of God, as the apostle clearly states. Therefore I shall speak more clearly and avail myself of this opportunity to preach about this material and to state the apostle’s ideas.

On the basis of what authority do secular princes and secular leaders act when they keep for themselves all the animals and the fowl so that no one besides them may hunt them? By what right? If anyone of the common people would do that, he would justly be called thief, robber, or swindler, because he would take away from common use what does not belong to him. But because the ones who do these things are powerful, therefore they cannot be thieves. Or is it really true that, imitating Demodocus,² we can say that princes and the powerful lords are of course not thieves and robbers but that they nevertheless do the things that thieves and robbers do? The vice of Nimrod, the first powerful and strong hunter before the Lord,³ is so deeply ingrained in them that they cannot rule without also oppressing people and hunting vigorously, that is, violently, which means seizing for themselves things that do not belong to them. Thus blessed Augustine in his book, On the City of God, says: “What are the great empires but great dens of thieves?”⁴ And he adds the following story: “When Alexander the Great asked a pirate who had become his prisoner of war what business he had to make the sea unsafe, the pirate in boldest defiance answered, ‘What business do you have to make the whole world unsafe? To be sure, I do this with a small boat, and I am called a robber; but you do it with a huge fleet and are called an emperor for it.’ ” He who wants to use this word of the apostle against those thieves should apply it to them about as follows: They are hanging the thieves and executing the robbers, and thus the big thieves act as judges of the little thieves. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? (v. 3).

Along the same lines they exact taxes from the people without urgent reason and exploit them by changing and devaluating the money, but they fine their subjects for greed and avarice. What is this but stealing and robbing those things which do not belong to us? Indeed, who will finally absolve of theft people who collect regular tribute and rightful compensation and yet do not fulfill their duties owed to the people by giving them protection, health, and justice? For their eyes are only on tyranny, on collecting riches, and on boasting with empty show of the possessions which they have acquired and kept.

With what profound blindness our spiritual princes do the same and worse deeds even the children in the streets know. Luxury, ambition, ostentation, envy, greed, eating and drinking and a general unfaithfulness to God—all these do not seem to deserve judgment. They are in these things up to their necks. Any diminution of their privileges or income or any reduction of their pensions, as may sometimes occur among their subjects, they consider reason for the harshest judgment and penalty. What kind of thoughts, I ask you, could God—no, not God but an Orestes or someone even worse—have when he sees an ambitious, greedy, immoderate bishop belabor his layman with all the thunderbolts of excommunication for a half florin? Must he not judge him to be twice or seven times an Orestes? Will he not tell him, “Do you suppose, O man, who judge those who do such things, and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?” And yet these things are now so common that because of their number they are thought pardonable. What a terrible punishment and wrath of God hangs over us today that He has willed that we live under such conditions so that we see this unfortunate desecration of the holy church and this destruction and ruin that is worse than any inflicted by an enemy.

In the second place, this must also be understood as applying to those who secretly in their hearts are judging others. Yes, they also judge them with their mouth when they denounce them, and yet they are in every respect exactly like those whom they judge. We call it shameless when a conceited person criticizes another conceited person, when one glutton rebukes another, or one miser snaps at another. This shamelessness is so obvious that it looks stupid and ridiculous even to fools, yet there is a strange blindness about it, so that very many people suffer from this plague. The less conceited criticizes the more conceited, and the more conceited the less conceited, the less greedy berates the greater miser, and so forth. To such people we must apply the words, “Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those, etc.” For they are necessarily judging themselves when they judge those who are like them. They are therefore convicted by their own words, “Judge not that you may not be judged” (Matt. 7:1), that is, so you do not bring the same judgment upon yourselves that you bring upon others. But we are blind to our own mistakes, yet regular Arguses⁵ over against those of others.

In the third place, this passage speaks about those people who think that they are holy and, as I said, are affected by sin that is different from the one they are judging. They act as if they were righteous because they do not do quite all the things other people are doing, and not rather as if they were unrighteous because they are doing some of the things which others are doing. They make so great a to-do about the good things they are doing that on account of them they cannot see their mistakes. It is of those people that the apostle is particularly speaking here. To teach that type of people and to correct them is an extremely difficult task, for we should not call them shameless if they merely judge those faults of which in part at least they are free. And yet they do not understand or do not notice that they are unrighteous because they are doing what they are judging. This is well expressed by blessed Augustine in the eighth chapter of On the Spirit and the Letter, where he says: “They do the works of the Law according to the letter without the Spirit, that is, from fear of punishment and not from love of righteousness. With their will they would want to do something different if they could get by with it without punishment, but they do so with a guilty will. What advantage can external works have when before God the will is sinful, even though the hand may be righteous before men?”⁶ In other words, they are doing the same things that they are judging. They are doing in their minds what others are doing through their actions, and they would do them in their actions too if it were permitted. This is the perversion of the synagog and the reason for its repudiation. In this weakness we are all on the same level. Therefore no one has a right to judge another person unless he wants to judge himself. The apostle wants to call them back to understand themselves, and he begins to teach them that no one who is outside of Christ should be excepted from those sinners, no matter how good he may be and no matter how he sits in judgment over them, he always remains among them, even though he does not see it. He is always doing the same things that he is condemning, even if he does not believe that to be true.

The apostle now calls attention to three good gifts of God to all sinners, namely, goodness, patience, and long-suffering, or all the riches, that is, the fullness and the greatness, of His goodness, patience, and long-suffering.

The riches of His goodness consist in the abundant fullness both in physical and spiritual gifts, such as the gifts of body and soul, the use and service of everything created, the protection of the angels, etc. The riches of His patience (that is, His forbearance and tolerance; this is the meaning of the Greek⁷ and below in Rom. 3:25: in sustentatione Dei, “in His divine forbearance”) are seen in the immense forbearance with which He bears their ingratitude for all His gifts and on top of it all their evil deeds against Him in the multitude and magnitude of their sins, by which (as far as they can) they insult God, who has dealt kindly with them, and by which they repay Him with evil. They soil His glory and desecrate His name (that is, they do not hallow it), and they desecrate and blaspheme everything that is related to God, as is stated below (vv. 23 f.).

The riches of God’s long-suffering appear in His extremely kind delay of the punishment and retribution for such a lack of gratitude and His willingness to wait for their improvement, as if He seemed to hope that they would improve. But the more abundantly God shows His long-suffering, the more severely will He execute judgment if His long-suffering has been in vain. Therefore the statement follows: You are storing up wrath for yourself (v. 5). The apostle does not say, “you deserve wrath,” but he says, “You are storing up,” that is, “a vast and heaped-up wrath is what you deserve!” Thus Valerius Maximus, although he was a pagan, said: “Divine wrath compensates for slowness of vengeance by means of severity of punishment.”⁸

From this passage we can deduce what a hardened heart is, namely one that despises the goodness, patience, and long-suffering of God. It receives many good gifts and commits many evil acts. It does not resolve to become better. There are two types of these people. The one type does these things because of the desire and lust of their external personality. The other type does them because of their own understanding and wisdom and because of stubborn insistence on their own holiness. They include Jews, heretics, schismatics, and other lovers of individuality.⁹ Therefore blessed Bernard says in chapter 1 of De consideratione: “A heart is called hardened because it cannot be softened by well-doing, frightened by threats, corrected by punishment, or moved by promises.”¹⁰ But many of these of the second type are more stubborn and unrepentant on account of their own conceit and their “holiness,” and they do not realize that this is only a double foolishness and unrighteousness. Prov. 26:12 reads: “Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.”

4. Do you not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? So great is the blindness of the sinner that he abuses to his own harm the things that have been given to him for his own benefit. On the other hand, the light is so bright in a righteous and pious person that he uses for his own benefit the things meant to hurt him. Thus the ungodly person does not know that the kindness of God leads him to repentance. The righteous person, however, understands that even the severity of God is good for his salvation, for it breaks him down and heals him. “The Lord kills and brings to life” (1 Sam. 2:6).

5. On the day¹¹ of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God. The Last Day is called the day of wrath and of mercy, the day of trouble and of peace, the day of destruction and of glory. On that day the godless will be punished and will be brought to shame; the godly, however, will be rewarded and glorified. In the same way also the spiritual day, which rules in the hearts of the faithful through the light of faith, is called both the day of wrath and the day of grace, the day of perdition and the day of salvation. In Ps. 110:5 we read: “The Lord is at your right hand; He has shattered kings on the day of His wrath,” that is, on the day and in the time of mercy, which is now, and in Zeph. 1:14–16: “The sound of the day of the Lord is bitter, the mighty man (that is, the powerful and proud man) will suffer tribulation there. A day of wrath is that day, a day of tribulation and distress, a day of calamity and misery, a day of darkness and obscurity, a day of clouds and whirlwinds, a day of the trumpet and alarm, etc.”

7. By patience in well-doing. So necessary is patience that no work can be good when patience is lacking, for the world is so perverted and the devil so wicked that he cannot pass a good work by without challenging it, but it is through this challenge that God in His wonderful good judgment tests the good work that pleases Him. Let us therefore keep the following canonical and practical rule: As long as we are doing good and do not experience as a result of it opposition, hatred, trouble, or harm, so long we have reason to worry that our work has not pleased God as yet, for trial and patience have not been applied as yet, and God has not yet approved it, because He has not yet tested it. For He does not approve what He has not tested before. But if our work is immediately attacked, then let us be of good cheer and firmly trust that it is well-pleasing to God, that is, believe that it is of God Himself, for what is of God must be crucified in the world. So long as it does not lead to the cross (that is, to shameful suffering), it is not recognized as a work that comes from God, inasmuch as the only-begotten Son was not protected against this experience but rather was appointed the example of it. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” (Matt. 5:10). “Rejoice and be glad,