Commentary on Romans

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.