Then the meaning is, — that Paul was a servant of Christ, not any kind of servant, but an Apostle,
and that by the call of God, and not by presumptuous intrusion: then follows a clearer explanation
of the Apostolic office, — it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel. For I cannot agree with
those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election of God; and who understand the
separation, either that from his mother’s womb, which he mentions in Galatians 1:15, or that which
Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he simply glories in
having God as the author of his call, lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness
taken this honor to himself.^16
We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the ministry of the word; for a special call is
necessary: and even those who seem particularly fitted ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves
in without a call. But as to the character of the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we shall consider
it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of an Apostle is the preaching of the
gospel. It hence appears what just objects of ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves
conspicuous only by their mitre and their crook, and boast themselves to be the successors of the
Apostles!
The word, servant, imports nothing else but a minister, for it refers to what is official.^17 I
mention this to remove the mistake of those who too much refine on this expression and think that
there is here to be understood a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ.
2.Which he had before promised, etc. — As the suspicion of being new subtracts much from
the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of the gospel by antiquity; as though he said,
“Christ came not on the earth unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of a new kind and not
heard of before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected from the
beginning of the world.” But as antiquity is often fabulous, he brings witnesses, and those approved,
even the Prophets of God, that he might remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that
their testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures.
We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us, not that it was promulgated
by the Prophets but only promised. If then the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows, that it was
revealed, when our Lord was at length manifested in the flesh. They are then mistaken who confound
the promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the appointed preaching of Christ as
manifested, in whom the promises themselves are exhibited.^18
3.Concerning his own Son,etc. — This is a remarkable passage, by which we are taught that
the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if any removes one step from Christ, he withdraws
himself from the gospel. For since he is the living and express image of the Father, it is no wonder,
that he alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be directed and in whom it is to
center. It is then a definition of the gospel, by which Paul expresses what is summarily comprehended
in it. I have rendered the words which follow, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the same case; which seems
(^16) Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother’s womb, Galatians 1:15,
and by the special commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the Church, Acts 13:3; Galatians
2:9.” — Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea
with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only tends to create confusion. — Ed.
(^17) Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called servants; and also our Savior. They were officially
servants. — Ed
(^18) The verb is only here; it comes from μ , which Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise.
“Which he had before promised.” is then the proper rendering, and not “Which he formerly published,” as proposed by Professor
Stuart. Both Doddridge and Macknight have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. — Ed.