j*****7
发帖数: 10575 | 1 3:1这样说来，犹太人有什么长处，割礼有什么益处呢。
3:2凡事大有好处。第一是神的圣言交托他们。
3:3既便有不信的，这有何妨呢。难道他们的不信，就废掉神的信麽。
3:4断乎不能。不如说，神是真实的，人都是虚谎的。如经上所记，你责备人的时候，
显为公义。被人议论的时候，可以得胜。
3:5我且照着人的常话说，我们的不义，若显出神的义来，我们可以怎麽说呢。神降怒
，是他不义麽。
3:6断乎不是。若是这样，神怎能审判世界呢。
3:7若神的真实，因我的虚谎，越发显出他的荣耀，为什么我还受审判，好像罪人呢。
3:8为什么不说，我们可以作恶以成善呢，这是毁谤我们的人，说我们有这话。这等人
定罪，是该当的。
3:9这却怎麽样呢。我们比他们强麽。决不是的。因为我们已经证明，犹太人和希利尼
人都在罪恶之下。
3:10就如经上所记，没有义人，连一个也没有。
3:11没有明白的，没有寻求神的。
3:12都是偏离正路，一同变为无用。没有行善的，连一个也没有。
3:13他们的喉咙是敞开的坟墓。他们用舌头弄诡诈。嘴唇里有虺蛇的毒气。
3:14满口是咒骂苦毒。
3:15杀人流血他们的脚飞跑。
3:16所经过的路，便行残害暴虐的事。
3:17平安的路，他们未曾知道。
3:18他们眼中不怕神。
3:19我们晓得律法上的话，都是对律法以下之人说的，好塞住各人的口，叫普世的人都
伏在神的审判之下。
3:20所以凡有血气的没有一个，因行律法，能在神面前称义。因为律法本是叫人知罪。
3：1 既然信仰是要看人的内心，那犹太人在信仰上还有什么先天优势呢？
3：2 先天优势是很大的。其中一点就是，他们拥有神的特殊启示，比其他人更容易认
识神。
3：3 不能因为犹太人在信仰上的失败，而否认神的信实
3：4 神在任何时候，任何事情上，都显为公义
3：5 因为我们的不义，就更加彰显和对比出，神是如此的信实
3：6 如果神自己不是公义的，他如何有权利审判世界呢
3：7 有些人的思维是，如果因为我的不义，才显出了神的义，那神应当感谢我这个罪人
3：8 这样的想法是狡诈的罪
3：9 那么犹太人比外帮人更加信实和公义么？不是
3：10 诗篇14篇
3：11 没有人明白真理，没有人寻求神
3：12 偏离真道，不行善道
3：13 诡诈与恶毒
3：14 口中的苦毒
3：15 杀戮
3：16 暴虐
3：17 不晓得平安的道路
3：18 不惧怕神
3：19 律法是让人都伏在神的审判之下，因为审判的标准就是律法
3：20 没有人能够在行为上满足神公义的标准。而律法的作用是使人认识到自己的罪
思考问题：
加尔文五要点（预定论）的第一条，“全然无能为力”
请问，根据这段经文，你如何理解“全然无能为力”？在没有神主动干预（拣选）的前
提下，人有没有可能认识真理，行走善道？ | r********7
发帖数: 887 | 2 哈哈，这个问题提得太好了！它直接把我们引到了《救赎预定论》和《神完整的救恩》
的“母腹相争”中去了。
加尔文是这样论述《救赎预定论》的：人里面残存的善，不够使他/她认识和选择神的
救恩。所以救赎是完全来自神的主权，出于神的拣选。
李常受认为神给信徒之《完整救恩》，特别是在罗马书所启示，是有法理和生机的两面
。法理的一面，是神救恩的手续，借基督的救赎，使神的救恩完全合乎他公义律法的要
求。生机的一面，是神救恩的成全，借基督的生命，使信徒在神的生命上变化长大而成
熟。神的救恩，是以基督为中心，以基督的身体为路线，并以新耶路撒冷为目标，全由
那赐生命的灵来完成。
这是让我身体里面“阴阳内力”互相冲撞的地方。
加尔文五要点（预定论）的第一条，“全然无能为力”
请问，根据这段经文，你如何理解“全然无能为力”？在没有神主动干预（拣选）的前
提下，人有没有可能认识真理，行走善道？
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 3:1这样说来，犹太人有什么长处，割礼有什么益处呢。
: 3:2凡事大有好处。第一是神的圣言交托他们。
: 3:3既便有不信的，这有何妨呢。难道他们的不信，就废掉神的信麽。
: 3:4断乎不能。不如说，神是真实的，人都是虚谎的。如经上所记，你责备人的时候，
: 显为公义。被人议论的时候，可以得胜。
: 3:5我且照着人的常话说，我们的不义，若显出神的义来，我们可以怎麽说呢。神降怒
: ，是他不义麽。
: 3:6断乎不是。若是这样，神怎能审判世界呢。
: 3:7若神的真实，因我的虚谎，越发显出他的荣耀，为什么我还受审判，好像罪人呢。
: 3:8为什么不说，我们可以作恶以成善呢，这是毁谤我们的人，说我们有这话。这等人
| j*****7
发帖数: 10575 | 3 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
【在 r********7 的大作中提到】
: 哈哈，这个问题提得太好了！它直接把我们引到了《救赎预定论》和《神完整的救恩》
: 的“母腹相争”中去了。
: 加尔文是这样论述《救赎预定论》的：人里面残存的善，不够使他/她认识和选择神的
: 救恩。所以救赎是完全来自神的主权，出于神的拣选。
: 李常受认为神给信徒之《完整救恩》，特别是在罗马书所启示，是有法理和生机的两面
: 。法理的一面，是神救恩的手续，借基督的救赎，使神的救恩完全合乎他公义律法的要
: 求。生机的一面，是神救恩的成全，借基督的生命，使信徒在神的生命上变化长大而成
: 熟。神的救恩，是以基督为中心，以基督的身体为路线，并以新耶路撒冷为目标，全由
: 那赐生命的灵来完成。
: 这是让我身体里面“阴阳内力”互相冲撞的地方。
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 4
1. What advantage [87]then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of
circumcision?
"
1. Though Paul has clearly proved that bare circumcision brought nothing to
the Jews, yet since he could not deny but that there was some difference
between the Gentiles and the Jews, which by that symbol was sealed to them
by the Lord, and since it was inconsistent to make a distinction, of which
God was the author, void and of no moment, it remained for him to remove
also this objection. It was indeed evident, that it was a foolish glorying
in which the Jews on this account indulged; yet still a doubt remained as to
the design of circumcision; for the Lord would not have appointed it had
not some benefit been intended. He therefore, by way of an objection, asks,
what it was that made the Jew superior to the Gentile; and he subjoins a
reason for this by another question, What is the benefit of circumcision?
For this separated the Jews from the common class of men; it was a partition
-wall, as Paul calls ceremonies, which kept parties asunder.
"
footnote:
"
87 “Prærogativa — prerogative,” τὸ περισσὸν
, rendered “pre-eminence” by Macknight; “præstantia — superiority
” by Beza and Pareus; and “advantage” in our version, and by Doddridge
and Stuart. — Ed. "
John Calvin's commmentary on Romans
source:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.vii.i.html
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 3:1这样说来，犹太人有什么长处，割礼有什么益处呢。
: 3:2凡事大有好处。第一是神的圣言交托他们。
: 3:3既便有不信的，这有何妨呢。难道他们的不信，就废掉神的信麽。
: 3:4断乎不能。不如说，神是真实的，人都是虚谎的。如经上所记，你责备人的时候，
: 显为公义。被人议论的时候，可以得胜。
: 3:5我且照着人的常话说，我们的不义，若显出神的义来，我们可以怎麽说呢。神降怒
: ，是他不义麽。
: 3:6断乎不是。若是这样，神怎能审判世界呢。
: 3:7若神的真实，因我的虚谎，越发显出他的荣耀，为什么我还受审判，好像罪人呢。
: 3:8为什么不说，我们可以作恶以成善呢，这是毁谤我们的人，说我们有这话。这等人
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 5
2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the
oracles of God.
"2. Much in every way, etc.; that is, very much. He begins here to give the
sacrament its own praise; but he concedes not, that on this account the Jews
ought to have been proud; for when he teaches that they were sealed by the
symbol of circumcision, by which they were counted the children of God, he
does not allow that they became superior to others through any merit or
worthiness of their own, but through the free mercy of God. If then regard
be had to them as men, he shows that they were on a level with others; but
if the favors of God be taken to the account, he admits that they possessed
what made them more eminent than other men.
First indeed, because, intrusted to them, etc. Some think there is here an
unfinished period, for he sets down what he does not afterwards complete.
But the word first seems not to me to be a note of number, but means chiefly
” or especially,[88]and is to be taken in this sense — “Though it were
but this one thing, that they have the oracles [89]of God committed to them,
it might be deemed sufficient to prove their superiority.” And it is
worthy of being noticed, that the advantage of circumcision is not made to
consist in the naked sign, but its value is derived from the word; for Paul
asks here what benefit the sacrament conferred on the Jews, and he answers,
that God had deposited with them the treasure of celestial wisdom. It hence
follows, that, apart from the word, no excellency remained. By oracles he
means the covenant which God revealed first to Abraham and to his posterity,
and afterwards sealed and unfolded by the law and the Prophets.
Now the oracles were committed to them, for the purpose of preserving them
as long as it pleased the Lord to continue his glory among them, and then of
publishing them during the time of their stewardship through the whole
world: they were first depositories, and secondly dispensers. But if this
benefit was to be so highly esteemed when the Lord favored one nation only
with the revelation of his word, we can never sufficiently reprobate our
ingratitude, who receive his word with so much negligence or with so much
carelessness, not to say disdain.
"
footnote:
"
88 The word πρῶτον is thus used in other places. See Matthew
6:33; Mark 7:27; 2 Peter 1:20. — Ed.
89 Λόγια, oracula, mean, in Greek authors, divine responses.
Hesychius explains it by Θέσφατα — divine dictates. The word is
used four times in New Testament. In Acts 7:38, it means specifically the
law of Moses; here it includes the whole of the Old Testament; in Hebrews 5:
12, and in 1 Peter 4:11, it embraces the truths of the Gospel. The divine
character of the Scriptures is by this word attested; they are the oracles
of God, his dictates, or communications from him. — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 6
3. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of
God without effect?
"
3. What indeed if some, etc. As before, while regarding the Jews as exulting
in the naked sign, he allowed them no not even a spark of glory; so now,
while considering the nature of the sign, he testifies that its virtue (
virtutem, efficacy) is not destroyed, no, not even by their inconstancy. As
then he seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have
been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished through the
ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what
opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of reticence, as
he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he might have
truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant of
God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he
mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some.
Shall their unbelief, etc. Καταργεῖν is properly to render
void and ineffectual; a meaning most suitable to this passage. For Paul’s
inquiry is not so much whether the unbelief of men neutralizes the truth of
God, so that it should not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether
it hinders its effect and fulfillment as to men. The meaning then is, “
Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God’s covenant so
abrogated by their perfidiousness that it brings forth no fruit among them?
To this he answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God should lose its
stability through man’s wickedness. Though then the greater part had
nullified and trodden under foot God’s covenant, it yet retained its
efficacy and manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with regard to
a few of that nation: and it is then efficacious when the grace or the
blessing of the Lord avails to eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except
when the promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual
covenant is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained
in that nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen
away from the privileges of the covenant.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 7
4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,
That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when
thou art judged.
"
4. But let God be true, etc. Whatever may be the opinion of others, I regard
this as an argument taken from the necessary consequence of what is opposed
to it, by which Paul invalidates the preceding objection. For since these
two things stand together, yea, necessarily accord, that God is true and
that man is false, it follows that the truth of God is not nullified by the
falsehood of men; for except he did now set those two things in opposition,
the one to the other, he would afterwards have in vain labored to refute
what was absurd, and show how God is just, though he manifests his justice
by our unjustice. Hence the meaning is by no means ambiguous, — that the
faithfulness of God is so far from being nullified by the perfidy and
apostasy of men that it thereby becomes more evident. “God,” he says, “is
true, not only because he is prepared to stand faithfully to his promises,
but because he also really fulfills whatever he declares; for he so speaks,
that his command becomes a reality. On the other hand, man is false, not
only because he often violates his pledged faith, but because he naturally
seeks falsehood and shuns the truth.”
The first clause contains the primary axiom of all Christian philosophy; the
latter is taken from Psalm 116:11, where David confesses that there is
nothing certain from man or in man.
Now this is a remarkable passage, and contains a consolation that is much
needed; for such is the perversity of men in rejecting and despising God’s
word, that its truth would be often doubted were not this to come to our
minds, that God’s verity depends not on man’s verity. But how does this
agree with what has been said previously — that in order to make the divine
promise effectual, faith, which receives it, is on the part of men
necessary? for faith stands opposed to falsehood. This seems, indeed, to be
a difficult question; but it may with no great difficulty be answered, and
in this way — the Lord, notwithstanding the lies of men, and though these
are hinderances to his truth, does yet find a way for it through a pathless
track, that he may come forth a conqueror, and that is, by correcting in his
elect the inbred unbelief of our nature, and by subjecting to his service
those who seem to be unconquerable. It must be added, that the discourse
here is concerning the corruption of nature, and not the grace of God, which
is the remedy for that corruption.
That thou mightest be justified, etc. The sense is, So far is it that the
truth of God is destroyed by our falsehood and unfaithfulness, that it
thereby shines forth and appears more evident, according to the testimony of
David, who says, that as he was sinner, God was a just and righteous Judge
in whatever he determined respecting him, and that he would overcome all the
calumnies of the ungodly who murmured against his righteousness. By the
words of God, David means the judgments which he pronounces upon us; for the
common application of these to promises is too strained: and so the
particle that, is not so much final, nor refers to a far-fetched consequence
, but implies an inference according to this purport, “Against thee have I
sinned; justly then dost thou punish me.” And that Paul has quoted this
passage according to the proper and real meaning of David, is clear from the
objection that is immediately added, “How shall the righteousness of God
remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?” For in vain, as I have
already observed, and unseasonable has Paul arrested the attention of his
readers with this difficulty, except David meant, that God, in his wonderful
providence, elicited from the sins of men a praise to his own righteousness
. The second clause in Hebrew is this, “And that thou mightest be pure in
thy judgment;” which expression imports nothing else but that God in all
his judgments is worthy of praise, how much soever the ungodly may clamor
and strive by their complaints disgracefully to efface his glory. But Paul
has followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better.
We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer
language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was
suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words.
The application then of this passage is the following: Since all the sins of
mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of the Lord, and since he is
especially glorified by his truth, it follows, that even the falsehood of
men serves to confirm rather than to subvert his truth. Though the word κρ
ίνεσθαι, may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the
Greek translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the
meaning of the Prophet. 91
"
footnote 91
"
91 Whenever there is a material agreement between the Greek and the
Hebrew, we ought not to make it otherwise. If the verb κρίνεσθα
ι, as admitted by most critics, may be taken actively and be thus made to
agree with the Hebrew, what reason can there be to take it in another sense?
The only real difference is in one word, between νικήσης,
“overcomest,” and תזכה, “art clear:” but the
meaning is the same, though the words are different. To overcome in judgment
, and to be clear in judgment, amounts to the same thing. The parallelism of
the Hebrew requires κρίνεσθαι to be a verb in the middle
voice, and to have an active meaning. The two lines in Hebrew, as it is
often the case in Hebrew poetry, contain the same sentiment in different
words, the last line expressing it more definitely; so that to be “
justified,” and to be “cleared,” convey the same idea; and also “in thy
word,” or saying — בדברך and “in thy
judgment” בשפטך. In many copies both these
last words are in the plural number, so that the first would be strictly
what is here expressed, “in thy words,” that is, the words which thou hast
declared; and “in thy judgments,” that is, those which thou hast
announced, would be fully rendered by “when thou Judgest.”
Commentators, both ancient and modern, have differed on the meaning of
the verb in question. Pareus, Beza, Macknight, and Stuart, take it in an
active sense; while Erasmus, Grotius, Venema, and others, contend for the
passive meaning. Drusius, Hammond, and Doddridge render it, “when thou
contendest in judgment,” or, “when thou art called to judgment:” and such
a meaning no doubt the verb has according to Matthew 5:40, and 1
Corinthians 6:1, 6. But in this case regard must be had, especially to the
meaning which corresponds the nearest with the original Hebrew. Some have
maintained that “in thy judgment” בשפטך may
be rendered “in judging thee;” but this would not only be unusual and make
the sentence hardly intelligible, but also destroy the evident parallelism
of the two lines. The whole verse may be thus literally rendered from the
Hebrew, —
Against thee, against thee only have I sinned;
And the evil before thine eyes have I done;
So that thou art justified in thy words,
And clear in thy judgments.
The conjunction למען, admits of being rendered so
that; see Psalm 30:12; Isaiah 41:20; Amos 2:7; and ὅπως in
many instances may be thus rendered; see Luke 2:35; Philemon 6; 1 Peter 2:9.
It is what Schleusner designates ἐκβατικῶς,
signifying the issue or the event.
Pareus connects the passage differently. He considers the former part of
the verse parenthetic, or as specifying what is generally stated in the
previous verse, the third; and with that verse he connects this passage: so
that the rendering of the two verses would be the following, —
3. For my transgression I acknowledge, And my sin is before me
continually, —
4. (Against thee, against thee only have I sinned, and the evil before
thine eyes have I done,) That thou mightest be justified in thy saying, And
clear in thy judgment.
This is certainty more probable than what Vatablus and Houbigant propose,
who connect the passage with the second verse, “Wash me thoroughly,” etc.
But the sense given by Calvin is the most satisfactory — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 8
5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall
we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
"5 But if our unrighteousness, etc. Though this is a digression from the
main subject, it was yet necessary for the Apostle to introduce it, lest he
should seem to give to the ill-disposed an occasion to speak evil, which he
knew would be readily laid hold on by them. For since they were watching for
every opportunity to defame the gospel, they had, in the testimony of David
, what they might have taken for the purpose of founding a calumny, — “If
God seeks nothing else, but to be glorified by men, why does he punish them,
when they offend, since by offending they glorify him? Without cause then
surely is he offended, if he derives the reason of his displeasure from that
by which he is glorified.” There is, indeed, no doubt, but that this was
an ordinary, and everywhere a common calumny, as it will presently appear.
Hence Paul could not have covertly passed it by; but that no one should
think that he expressed the sentiments of his own mind, he premises that he
assumes the person of the ungodly; and at the same time, he sharply, touches
, by a single expression, on human reason; whose work, as he intimates, is
ever to bark against the wisdom of God; for he says not, “according to the
ungodly,” but “according to man,” or as man. And thus indeed it is, for
all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the flesh: and at the same tine it
possesses so much audacity, that it fears not to oppose them and insolently
to assail what it cannot comprehend. We are hence reminded, that if we
desire to become capable of understanding them, we must especially labor to
become freed from our own reason, (proprio sensu) and to give up ourselves,
and unreservedly to submit to his word. — The word wrath, taken here for
judgment, refers to punishment; as though he said, “Is God unjust, who
punishes those sins which set forth his righteousness?”
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 9
6. God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
"6. By no means, etc. In checking this blasphemy he gives not a direct reply
to the objection, but begins with expressing his abhorrence of it, lest the
Christian religion should even appear to include absurdities so great. And
this is more weighty than if he adopted a simple denial; for he implies,
that this impious expression deserved to be regarded with horror, and not to
be heard. He presently subjoins what may be called an indirect refutation;
for he does not distinctly refute the calumny, but gives only this reply, —
that the objection was absurd. Moreover, he takes an argument from an
office which belongs to God, by which he proves it to be impossible, — God
shall judge the world; he cannot then be unjust.
This argument is not derived, so to speak, from the mere power of God, but
from his exercised power, which shines forth in the whole arrangement and
order of his works; as though he said, — “It is God’s work to judge the
world, that is, to rectify it by his own righteousness, and to reduce to the
best order whatever there is in it out of order: he cannot then determine
any thing unjustly.” And he seems to allude to a passage recorded by Moses,
in Genesis 18:25, where it is said, that when Abraham prayed God not to
deliver Sodom wholly to destruction, he spoke to this purpose, —
“It is not meet, that thou who art to judge the earth, shouldest destroy
the just with the ungodly: for this is not thy work nor can it be done by
thee.”
A similar declaration is found in Job 34:17, —
“Should he who hates judgment exercise power?”
For though there are found among men unjust judges, yet this happens,
because they usurp authority contrary to law and right, or because they are
inconsiderately raised to that eminence, or because they degenerate from
themselves. But there is nothing of this kind with regard to God. Since,
then, he is by nature judge, it must be that he is just, for he cannot deny
himself. Paul then proves from what is impossible, that God is absurdly
accused of unrighteousness; for to him peculiarly and naturally belongs the
work of justly governing the world. And though what Paul teaches extends to
the constant government of God, yet I allow that it has a special reference
to the last judgment; for then only a real restoration of just order will
take place. But if you wish for a direct refutation, by which profane things
of this kind may be checked, take this, and say, “That it comes not
through what unrighteousness is, that God’s righteousness becomes more
illustrious, but that our wickedness is so surpassed by God’s goodness,
that it is turned to serve an end different from that to which it tends.”
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 10
7. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory;
why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
"[92]This objection, I have no doubt, is adduced in the person of the
ungodly; for it is a sort of an explanation of the former verse, and would
have been connected with it, had not the Apostle, moved with indignation,
broken off the sentence in the middle. The meaning of the objection is — “
If by our unfaithfulness the truth of God becomes more conspicuous, and in a
manner confirmed, and hence more glory redounds to him, it is by no means
just, that he, who serves to display God’s glory, should be punished as a
sinner.”[93]
"
footnote
"92 Or, “For if” — Si enim — εἰ γὰρ. The particle γ&
#8048;ρ here gives no reason, but is to be viewed as meaning then, or
indeed, verily; see Luke 12:58; John 9:30; Acts 16:37; Philippians 2:27
Stuart renders it, still, and says, that it “points to a connection with
verse. 5, and denotes a continuance of the same theme.” Macknight often
renders it by further, besides, and no doubt rightly. — Ed.
93
It is remarkable how the Apostle changes his words from the third verse to
the end of this, while the same things are essentially meant. His style is
throughout Hebraistic. Stuart makes these just remarks, “Αδικία
is here [Romans 3:5] the generic appellation of sin, for which a specific
name, ἀπιστία, was employed in Romans 3:3, and ψεῦ
σμα, in Romans 3:7. In like manner the δικαιοσύνη, in
Romans 3:5, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one,
πίστιν, in Romans 3:3, and by ἀλήθεια, in Romans
3:7. The idea is substantially the same, which is designated by these
respectively corresponding appellations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity,
are designated by πίστιν, δικαιοσύνην, and ἀ
;λήθεια; while ἀλήθεια, and ἀπιστ&#
8055;α ἀδικία, designate unfaithfulness, want of
uprightness and false dealing. All of these terms have more or less
reference to the ברית, covenant or compact (so to
speak) which existed between God and his ancient people.” — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| | | l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 11
8. And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that
we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
"8. And not, etc. This is an elliptical sentence, in which a word is to be
understood. It will be complete, if you read it thus, — “and why is it not
rather said, (as we are reproached, etc.) that we are to do evils, that
good things may come?” But the Apostle deigns not to answer the slander;
which yet we may check by the most solid reason. The pretense, indeed, is
this, — “If God is by our iniquity glorified, and if nothing can be done
by man in this life more befitting than to promote the glory of God, then
let us sin to advance his glory!” Now the answer to this is evident, — “
That evil cannot of itself produce anything but evil; and that God’s glory
is through our sin illustrated, is not the work of man, but the work of God;
who, as a wonderful worker, knows how to overcome our wickedness, and to
convert it to another end, so as to turn it contrary to what we intend, to
the promotion of his own glory.” God has prescribed to us the way, by which
he would have himself to be glorified by us, even by true piety, which
consists in obedience to his word. He who leaps over this boundary, strives
not to honor God, but to dishonor him. That it turns out otherwise, is to be
ascribed to the Providence of God, and not to the wickedness of man;
through which it comes not, that the majesty of God is not injured, nay,
wholly overthrown [94]
(As we are reproached,) etc. Since Paul speaks so reverently of the secret
judgments of God, it is a wonder that his enemies should have fallen into
such wantonness as to calumniate him: but there has never been so much
reverence and seriousness displayed by God’s servants as to be sufficient
to check impure and virulent tongues. It is not then a new thing, that
adversaries at this day load with so many false accusations, and render
odious our doctrine, which we ourselves know to be the pure gospel of Christ
, and all the angels, as well as the faithful, are our witnesses. Nothing
can be imagined more monstrous than what we read here was laid to the charge
of Paul, to the end, that his preaching might be rendered hateful to the
inexperienced. Let us then bear this evil, when the ungodly abuse the truth
which we preach by their calumnies: nor let us cease, on this account,
constantly to defend the genuine confession of it, inasmuch as it has
sufficient power to crush and to dissipate their falsehoods. Let us, at the
same time, according to the Apostle’s example, oppose, as much as we can,
all malicious subtilties, (technis — crafts, wiles,) that the base and the
abandoned may not, without some check, speak evil of our Creator.
Whose judgment is just. Some take this in an active sense, as signifying
that Paul so far assents to them, that what they objected was absurd, in
order that the doctrine of the gospel might not be thought to be connected
with such paradoxes: but I approve more of the passive meaning; for it would
not have been suitable simply to express an approval of such a wickedness,
which, on the contrary, deserved to be severely condemned; and this is what
Paul seems to me to have done. And their perverseness was, on two accounts,
to be condemned, — first, because this impiety had gained the assent of
their minds; and secondly, because, in traducing the gospel, they dared to
draw from it their calumny.
"
footnote 94
"94 Grotius thinks, that in the beginning of this verse there is a
transposition, and that ὅτι, after the parenthesis, ought to be
construed before μὴ which precedes it, and that ὅτι is for
cur, why, — as in Mark 9:11, and 28. The version would then be, “and why
not, (as we are reproached, and as some declare that we say,) Let us do evil
that good may come?” This is the rendering of Luther But Limborch and
Stuart consider λεγωμεν to be understood after μὴ; and the
latter takes μὴ not as a negative but an interrogative, “and shall
we say,” etc.? Amidst these varieties, the main drift of the passage
remains the same. — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 12
9. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before
proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.
"9. What then? He returns from his digression to his subject. For lest the
Jews should object that they were deprived of their right, as he had
mentioned those distinctions of honor, for which they thought themselves
superior to the Gentiles, he now at length replies to the question — in
what respect they excelled the Gentiles. And though his answer seems in
appearance to militate against what he had said before, (for he now strips
those of all dignity to whom he had attributed so much,) there is yet no
discord; for those privileges in which he allowed them to be eminent, were
separate from themselves, and dependent on God’s goodness, and not on their
own merit: but here he makes inquiry as to their own worthiness, whether
they could glory in any respect in themselves. Hence the two answers he
gives so agree together, that the one follows from the other; for while he
extols their privileges, by including them among the free benefits of God,
he shows that they had nothing of their own. Hence, what he now answers
might have been easily inferred; for since it was their chief superiority,
that God’s oracles were deposited with them, and they had it not through
their own merit, there was nothing left for them, on account of which they
could glory before God. Now mark the holy contrivance (sanctum artificium)
which he adopts; for when he ascribes pre-eminency to them, he speaks in the
third person; but when he strips them of all things, he puts himself among
them, that he might avoid giving offense.
For we have before brought a charge, etc. The Greek verb which Paul adopts,
αἰτιάσθαι is properly a forensic term; and I have
therefore preferred to render it, “We have brought a charge;”[96]
for an accuser in an action is said to charge a crime, which he is prepared
to substantiate by testimonies and other proofs. Now the Apostle had
summoned all mankind universally before the tribunal of God, that he might
include all under the same condemnation: and it is to no purpose for any one
to object, and say that the Apostle here not only brings a charge, but more
especially proves it; for a charge is not true except it depends on solid
and strong evidences, according to what Cicero says, who, in a certain place
, distinguishes between a charge and a slander. We must add, that to be
under sin means that we are justly condemned as sinners before God, or that
we are held under the curse which is due to sin; for as righteousness brings
with it absolution, so sin is followed by condemnation.
"
footnote 96
"
96 So do Grotius, Beza, and Stuart render the verb. Doddridge and Macknight have preserved our common version. “We have before charged,” Chalmers “Antea idoneis argumentis demonstravimus — we have before proved by sufficient arguments.” Schleusner It is charge rather than conviction that the verb imports, though the latter idea is also considered to be included. — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 13
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
"10. As it is written, etc. He has hitherto used proofs or arguments to
convince men of their iniquity; he now begins to reason from authority; and
it is to Christians the strongest kind of proof, when authority is derived
from the only true God. And hence let ecclesiastical teachers learn what
their office is; for since Paul asserts here no truth but what he confirms
by the sure testimony of Scripture, much less ought such a thing to be
attempted by those, who have no other commission but to preach the gospel,
which they have received through Paul and others.
There is none righteous, etc. The Apostle, who gives the meaning rather than
the entire words, seems, in the first place, before he comes to particulars
, to state generally the substance of what the Prophet declares to be in man
, and that is — that none is righteous;[98]he afterwards particularly
enumerates the effects or fruits of this unrighteousness.
"
footnote
"
98 Psalm 14:1. The Hebrew is, “There is none that doeth good;” and the
Septuagint, “There is none doing kindness, (χρηστότητα),
there is not even one, (ὀυκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑ
νός.)” So that the Apostle quotes the meaning, not the words.
The eleventh verse (Romans 3:11) is from the same Psalm; the Hebrew, with
which the Septuagint agree, except that there is the disjunctive ἢ
between the participles, is the following, — “Whether there is any one who
understands, who seeks after God.” — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 14
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
"11. The first effect is, that there is none that understands: and then this
ignorance is immediately proved, for they seek not God; for empty is the
man in whom there is not the knowledge of God, whatever other learning he
may possess; yea, the sciences and the arts, which in themselves are good,
are empty things, when they are without this groundwork.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 15
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
"[99]There is no one who doeth kindness By this we are to understand, that
they had put off every feeling of humanity. For as the best bond of mutual
concord among us is the knowledge of God, (as he is the common Father of all
, he wonderfully unites us, and without him there is nothing but disunion,)
so inhumanity commonly follows where there is ignorance of God, as every one
, when he despises others, loves and seeks his own good.
"
footnote
"
99 This verse is literally the Septuagint, and as to meaning, a correct
version of the Hebrew. “All have gone out of the way — πάντε&#
962; ἐξέκλιναν” “is in Hebrew הכל &#
1505;ר, “the whole (or every one) has turned aside,” or revolted, or
apostatized. Then, “they have become unprofitable” or useless, is נ
אלחו, “they are become putrid,” or Corrupted, like
putrified fruit or meat, therefore useless, not fit for what they were
designed — to serve God and to promote their own and the good of others.
Idolatry was evidently this putrescence. — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 16
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have used
deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
"Their throat is an open grave[100]that is, a gulf to swallow up men. It is
more than if he had said, that they were devourers (ἀνθρωποφ&#
8049;γους — men-eaters;) for it is an intimation of extreme
barbarity, when the throat is said to be so great a gulf, that it is
sufficient to swallow down and devour men whole and entire. Their tongues
are deceitful, and, the poison of asps is under their lips, import the same
thing,
"
FOOTNOTE
"
100 This is from Psalm 5:9, that is, the first part, and is literally the
Septuagint, which correctly represents the Hebrew. The last clause is from
Psalm 140:3, and is according to the Septuagint, and the Hebrew, too, except
that “asps,” or adders, is in the singular number. Stuart gives the
import of this figurative language different from Calvin: “As from the
sepulchre,” he says, “issues forth an offensive and pestilential vapor; so
from the mouths of slanderous persons issue noisome and pestilential words.
Their words are like poison, they utter the poisonous breath of slander.”
— Ed
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 17
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
"Then he says, that their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness [101]— a
vice of an opposite character to the former; but the meaning is, that they
are in every way full of wickedness; for if they speak fair, they deceive
and blend poison with their flatteries; but if they draw forth what they
have in their hearts, bitterness and cursing stream out.
"
FOOTNOTE
"101 Psalm 10:7. Paul corrects the order of the words as found in the
Septuagint, and gives the Hebrew more exactly, but retains the word “
bitterness,” by which the Septuagint have rendered מרמ&#
1493;ת, which means deceit, or rather, mischievous deceit. Some think
that it ought to be מררות, “bitterness;” but
there is no copy in its favor. — Ed. "
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 18
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
"
16. Very striking is the sentence that is added from Isaiah, Ruin and misery
are in all their ways;[102] for it is a representation of ferociousness
above measure barbarous, which produces solitude and waste by destroying
every thing wherever it prevails: it is the same as the description which
Pliny gives of Domitian
"
FOOTNOTE
"
102 Romans 3:15, 16, and 17 are taken from Isaiah 59:7, 8. Both the
Hebrew and the Septuagint are alike, but Paul has abbreviated them, and
changed two words in the Greek version, having put οξει᾿ for τα
χινοι, and ἔγνωσαν for ὀίδασι, and has
followed that version in leaving out “innocent” before “blood.” — Ed
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 19
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
"17. It follows, The way of peace they have not known: they are so
habituated to plunders, acts of violence and wrong, to savageness and
cruelty, that they know not how to act kindly and courteously.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 20
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
"In the last clause [103] he repeats again, in other words, what we have
noticed at the beginning — that every wickedness flows from a disregard of
God: for as the principal part of wisdom is the fear of God, when we depart
from that, there remains in us nothing right or pure. In short, as it is a
bridle to restrain our wickedness, so when it is wanting, we feel at liberty
to indulge every kind of licentiousness.
And that these testimonies may not seem to any one to have been unfitly
produced, let us consider each of them in connection with the passages from
which they have been taken. David says in Psalm 14:1, that there was such
perverseness in men, that God, when looking on them all in their different
conditions, could not find a righteous man, no, not one. It then follows,
that this evil pervaded mankind universally; for nothing is hid from the
sight of God. He speaks indeed at the end of the Psalm of the redemption of
Israel: but we shall presently show how men become holy, and how far they
are exempt from this condition. In the other Psalms he speaks of the
treachery of his enemies, while he was exhibiting in himself and in his
descendants a type of the kingdom of Christ: hence we have in his
adversaries the representatives of all those, who being alienated from
Christ, are not led by his Spirit. Isaiah expressly mentions Israel; and
therefore his charge applies with still greater force against the Gentiles.
What, then? There is no doubt but that the character of men is described in
those words, in order that we may see what man is when left to himself; for
Scripture testifies that all men are in this state, who are not regenerated
by the grace of God. The condition of the saints would be nothing better,
were not this depravity corrected in them: and that they may still remember
that they differ nothing from others by nature, they do find in the relics
of their flesh (by which they are always encompassed) the seeds of those
evils, which would constantly produce fruits, were they not prevented by
being mortified; and for this mortification they are indebted to God’s
mercy and not to their own nature. We may add, that though all the vices
here enumerated are not found conspicuously in every individual, yet they
may be justly and truly ascribed to human nature, as we have already
observed on Romans 1:26.
"
footnote
"
103 It is taken from Psalm 36:1, and verbatim from the Greek version, and
strictly in accordance with the Hebrew. It is evident from several of these
quotations, that Paul’s object, as Calvin says, was to represent the
general meaning, and not to keep strictly to the expressions.
There is a difference of opinion as to the precise object of the Apostle;
whether in these quotations he had regard to the Jews only, or to both Jews
and Gentiles. In the introduction, Romans 3:9, he mentions both, and in the
conclusion, Romans 3:19, he evidently refers to both, in these words, “
that every, mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before
God.”
The most consistent view seems to be, that the passages quoted refer both
to Jews and Gentiles; the last, more especially, to the Jews, while some of
the preceding have a special reference to the Gentile world, particularly
Psalm 14, as it describes the character of the enemies of God and his people
, to whose liberation the Psalmist refers in the last verse. — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 21
伏在神的审判之下。
19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who
are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God.
"19. Now we know, etc. Leaving the Gentiles, he distinctly addresses his
words to the Jews; for he had a much more difficult work in subduing them,
because they, though no less destitute of true righteousness than the
Gentiles, yet covered themselves with the cloak of God’s covenant, as
though it was a sufficient holiness to them to have been separated from the
rest of the world by the election of God. And he indeed mentions those
evasions which he well understood the Jews were ready to bring forward; for
whatever was said in the law unfavorably of mankind, they usually applied to
the Gentiles, as though they were exempt from the common condition of men,
and no doubt they would have been so, had they not fallen from their own
dignity. Hence, that no false conceit as to their own worthiness should be a
hinderance to them, and that they might not confine to the Gentiles alone
what applied to them in common with others, Paul here anticipates them, and
shows, from what Scripture declares, that they were not only blended with
the multitude, but that condemnation was peculiarly denounced on them. And
we indeed see the discretion of the Apostle in undertaking to refute these
objections; for to whom but to the Jews had the law been given, and to whose
instruction but theirs ought it to have served? What then it states
respecting others is as it were accidental; or as they say, παρεργον
, an appendage; but it applies its teaching mainly to its own disciples.
Under the law He says that the Jews were those to whom the law was destined,
it hence follows, that it especially regards them; and under the word law
he includes also the Prophets, and so the whole of the Old Testament — That
every mouth may be stopped, etc.; that is, that every evasion may be cut
off, and every occasion for excuse. It is a metaphor taken from courts of
law, where the accused, if he has anything to plead as a lawful defense,
demands leave to speak, that he might clear himself from the things laid to
his charge; but if he is convicted by his own conscience, he is silent, and
without saying a word waits for his condemnation, being even already by his
own silence condemned. Of the same meaning is this saying in Job 40:4, “I
will lay my hand on my mouth.” He indeed says, that though he was not
altogether without some kind of excuse, he would yet cease to justify
himself, and submit to the sentence of God. The next clause contains the
explanation; for his mouth is stopped, who is so fast held by the sentence
of condemnation, that he can by no means escape. According to another sense,
to be silent before the Lord is to tremble at his majesty, and to stand
mute, being astonished at his brightness.[105]
"
footnote
"
105 To see the force and meaning of this verse, we must bear in mind
that the former part was said to prevent the Jews from evading the
application of the preceding testimonies; and then the words “that every
mouth,” etc., and “that all the world,” etc., were added, not so much to
include the Gentiles, as to include the Jews, who thought themselves
exempted. No doubt the Gentiles are included, but the special object of the
Apostle evidently seems to prevent the Jews from supposing that they were
not included. In no other way can the connection between the two parts of
the verse be understood. — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
| l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 22
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in
his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
"
20. Therefore by the works of the law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even
among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the
observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies
alone. The addition of the word law induced Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome
to assent to the latter opinion;[106]for they thought that there is a
peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the expression should not be
understood as including all works. But this difficulty may be very easily
removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we seek by them to
render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take away the
power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be any,
which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there
would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul
expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a
reward is apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who
held it as an approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic
worthiness, but become meritorious by covenant. And though they were
mistaken, inasmuch as they saw not that works are ever polluted with vices,
which deprive them of any merit, yet this principle is still true, that the
reward for works depends on the free promise of the law. Wisely then and
rightly does Paul speak here; for he speaks not of mere works, but
distinctly and expressly refers to the keeping of the law, the subject which
he is discussing.[107]As to those things which have been adduced by learned
men in defense of this opinion, they are weaker than they might have been.
They think that by mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which
belonged to ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have
already explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than
hypocrites, and we know that they glory only in external masks; and then
circumcision, according to their view, was a sort of initiation into the
righteousness of the law; and hence it seemed to them a work of primary
excellence, and indeed the basis as it were of the righteousness of works.
— They also allege what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul
handles the same subject, and refers to ceremonies only; but that also is
not sufficiently strong to support what they wish to defend. It is certain
that Paul had a controversy with those who inspired the people with a false
confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of this confidence, he did not
confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak specifically of what value
they were; but he included the whole law, as it is evident from those
passages which are derived from that source. Such also was the character of
the disputation held at Jerusalem by the disciples.
But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks here of the whole law;
for we are abundantly supported by the thread of reasoning which he has
hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are many other passages
which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore a truth, which
deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, — that by keeping the
law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned the reason, and
he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being to a man
guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law. And
these two things — to be justified by works — and to be guilty of
transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly
inconsistent the one with the other. — The word flesh, without some
particular specification, signifies men;[108]though it seems to convey a
meaning somewhat more general, as it is more expressive to say, “All
mortals,” than to say, “All men,” as you may see in Gallius.
For by the law, etc. He reasons from what is of an opposite character, —
that righteousness is not brought to us by the law, because it convinces us
of sin and condemns us; for life and death proceed not from the same
fountain. And as he reasons from the contrary effect of the law, that it
cannot confer righteousness on us, let us know, that the argument does not
otherwise hold good, except we hold this as an inseparable and unvarying
circumstance, — that by showing to man his sin, it cuts off the hope of
salvation. It is indeed by itself, as it teaches us what righteousness is,
the way to salvation: but our depravity and corruption prevent it from being
in this respect of any advantage to us. It is also necessary in the second
place to add this, — that whosoever is found to be a sinner, is deprived of
righteousness; for to devise with the sophisters a half kind of
righteousness, so that works in part justify, is frivolous: but nothing is
in this respect gained, on account of man’s corruption.[109]"
footnote
"
106 The original is “ut in priorem opinionem concederent:” but the context
shows clearly that “priorem“ is a misprint for “posteriorem. In addition
to the authors mentioned here may be added Ambrose, Theodoret, Pelagius,
Erasmus, and Grotius And yet, notwithstanding all those authorities, the
opinion referred to is wholly inconsistent with the reasoning of the Apostle
here and throughout the whole Epistle. It has indeed been given up as
untenable by modern authors of the same school, such as Locke, Whitby, and
Macknight
To disprove this notion it is sufficient to notice the sins which the
Apostle had referred to; they are not those against the ceremonial but the
moral law, and it is because the moral law is transgressed that it cannot
justify.
“If there be any law which man has perfectly kept, he may doubtless be
justified by it; and surely no man can be justified by a law which condemns
him for breaking it. But there is no law of God which any man has kept;
therefore no law by the deeds of which a man can be justified. The Gentile
broke the law of his reason and conscience; the Jew broke the moral law; and
even the attempt to justify himself by observing the ceremonial law,
contradicted the very nature and intent of it.” — Scott
107
The argument and the reasoning of the Apostle seem to require that ἐξ
ἔργων νόμου should be rendered here literally, “by
works of law,” without the article, as the word “law” seems here,
according to the drift of the argument, to mean law in general, both natural
and revealed; and διὰ νόμου in the next clause must be
regarded as having the same meaning; the law of nature as well as the
written law, though not to the same extent, makes sin known. This is the
view taken by Pareus, Doddridge, Macknight, Stuart, and Haldane. — Ed.
108 The expression is ὀυ πᾶσα σὰρξ — not all,
that is, not any flesh, etc.; the word πᾶσα, like כל in
Hebrew, is used here in the sense of “any.” The sentence bears a
resemblance to what is contained in Psalm 143:2, “for justified before thee
shall not all living,” or, not any one living, לא כ&#
1500; חי. The sentence here is literally, “Hence by works of
law shall not be justified any flesh before Him.” — Ed.
"
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 所以你认为两者的看法是相同的？
|
|
