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
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
(^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.
(^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