any part. In like manner, by the word grace, we are to understand both parts of redemption — the
remission of sins, by which God imputes righteousness to us, — and the sanctification of the Spirit,
by whom he forms us anew unto good works. The adversative particle, [ἀλλὰ, but,] I take in the
sense of alleging a reason, which is not unfrequently the case; as though it was said — “We who
are under grace, are not therefore under the law.”
The sense now is clear; for the Apostle intended to comfort us, lest we should be wearied in
our minds, while striving to do what is right, because we still find in ourselves many imperfections.
For how much soever we may be harassed by the stings of sin, it cannot yet overcome us, for we
are enabled to conquer it by the Spirit of God; and then, being under grace, we are freed from the
rigorous requirements of the law. We must further understand, that the Apostle assumes it as granted,
that all who are without the grace of God, being bound under the yoke of the law, are under
condemnation. And so we may on the other hand conclude, that as long as they are under the law,
they are subject to the dominion of sin.^194
15.What then? As the wisdom of the flesh is ever clamorous against the mysteries of God, it
was necessary for the Apostle to subjoin what might anticipate an objection: for since the law is
the rule of life, and has been given to guide men, we think that when it is removed all discipline
immediately falls to the ground, that restraints are taken away, in a word, that there remains no
distinction or difference between good and evil. But we are much deceived if we think, that the
righteousness which God approves of in his law is abolished, when the law is abrogated; for the
abrogation is by no means to be applied to the precepts which teach the right way of living, as
Christ confirms and sanctions these and does not abrogate them; but the right view is, that nothing
is taken away but the curse, to which all men without grace are subject. But though Paul does not
distinctly express this, yet he indirectly intimates it.
- By no means: know ye not? This is not a bare denial as some think, as though he preferred
to express his abhorrence of such a question rather than to disprove it: for a confutation immediately
follows, derived from a contrary supposition, and to this purpose, “Between the yoke of Christ and
that of sin there is so much contrariety, that no one can bear them both; if we sin, we give ourselves
up to the service of sin; but the faithful, on the contrary have been redeemed from the tyranny of
sin, that they may serve Christ: it is therefore impossible for them to remain bound to sin.” But it
will be better to examine more closely the course of reasoning, as pursued by Paul.
To whom we obey, etc. This relative may be taken in a causative sense, as it often is; as when
one says, — there is no kind of crime which a parricide will not do, who has not hesitated to commit
the greatest crime of all, and so barbarous as to be almost abhorred even by wild beasts. And Paul
adduces his reason partly from the effects, and partly from the nature of correlatives. For first, if
they obey, he concludes that they are servants, for obedience proves that he, who thus brings one
into subjection to himself, has the power of commanding. This reason as to service is from the
effect, and from this the other arises. “If you be servants, then of course sin has the dominion.”
Or of obedience, etc. The language is not strictly correct; for if he wished to have the clauses
correspondent, he would have said, “or of righteousness unto life”^195 But as the change in the words
(^194) The word “law” here, is taken by Scott and others, indefinitely, as meaning law as the ground of the covenant of works,
written or unwritten; and the literal rendering is, “under law” — μ ; and it is the same in the next verse, “under law.” — Ed.
(^195) Beza’s remark on this is, — that obedience is not the cause of life, as sin is of death, but is the way to life: and hence the
want of correspondence in the two clauses. But others, such as Venema, Turrettin, and Stuart, consider that the clauses really
correspond. They take — “unto death,” as signifying, unto condemnation; and , they render “unto justification;”