these things to me, yet it cannot be denied but that a danger of this kind was connected with such
disturbed state of things. Whether, then, they meant to provide for the future, or to remedy an evil
already received, they all, I think assumed the name of that tribe, in which the purity of religion
remained the longest, and which, by a peculiar privilege, excelled all the rest, as from it the Redeemer
was expected to come; for it was their refuge in all extremities, to console themselves with the
expectation of the Messiah. However this may be, by the name of Jews they avowed themselves
to be the heirs of the covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed.
And restest in the law, and gloriest in God,etc. He means not that they rested in attending to
the law, as though they applied their minds to the keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves
them for not observing the end for which the law had been given; for they had no care for its
observance, and were inflated on this account only, — because they were persuaded that the oracles
of God belonged to them. In the same way they gloried in God, not as the Lord commands by his
Prophet, — to humble ourselves, and to seek our glory in him alone, (Jeremiah 9:24,) — but being
without any knowledge of God’s goodness, they made him, of whom they were inwardly destitute,
peculiarly their own, and assumed to be his people, for the purpose of vain ostentation before men.
This, then, was not the glorying of the heart, but the boasting of the tongue.
18.And knowest his will, and approvest things excellent, etc. He now concedes to them the
knowledge of the divine will, and the approval of things useful; and this they had attained from the
doctrine of the law. But there is a twofold approval, — one of choice, when we embrace the good
we approve; the other of judgment, by which indeed we distinguish good from evil, but by no means
strive or desire to follow it. Thus the Jews were so learned in the law that they could pass judgment
on the conduct of others, but were not careful to regulate their life according to that judgment. But
as Paul reproves their hypocrisy, we may, on the other hand, conclude, that excellent things are
then only rightly approved (provided our judgment proceeds from sincerity) when God is attended
to; for his will, as it is revealed in the law, is here appointed as the guide and teacher of what is to
be justly approved.^79
19.And believest thyself,etc. More is still granted to them; as though they had not only what
was sufficient for themselves, but also that by which they could enrich others. He grants, indeed,
that they had such abundance of learning, as that others might have been supplied.^80
- I take what follows, having the form of knowledge, as a reason for the preceding; and it may
be thus explained, — “because thou hast the form of knowledge.” For they professed to be the
teachers of others, because they seemed to carry in their breasts all the secrets of the law. The word
(^79) There are two expositions of the words, μ , which may be sustained according to what the words signify in
other places. The first word means to prove, or test, or examine, and also to approve; and the second signifies things which differ,
or things which are excellent. “Thou provest, or, distinguishest things which differ,” is the rendering of Beza, Pareus, Doddridge,
and Stuart: “Thou approvest things excellent or useful,” is the rendering of Erasmus, Macknight, and others. The first is the most
suitable to the context, as knowledge, and not approval, is evidently intended, as proved by the explanatory clause which follows,
— “being instructed out of the law.” — Ed.
(^80) Calvin has passed over here several clauses: they are so plain as to require no remarks, except the two last. “The instructor
of the unwise — insipientium,” , of such as were foolish from not understanding things rightly. “The teacher of the ignorant
— imperitorum,” , babes, that is, of such as were ignorant like babes. But these and the foregoing titles, “the guide of the
blind,” and, “light to those in darkness,” were such as the Jewish doctors assumed, and are not to be considered as having any
great difference in their real meaning. There seems to be no reason to suppose, with Doddridge and some others, that “the blind,
foolish, ignorant” were the Gentiles, for the Jews did not assume the office of teaching them. It is to be observed that Paul here
takes the case, not of the common people, but of the learned — the teachers.