Kom ons lees Romeine saam met Luther en Calvyn
18 Want die toorn van God word van die hemel af geopenbaar oor al die goddeloosheid en ongeregtigheid van die mense wat in ongeregtigheid die waarheid onderdruk,
19 omdat wat van God geken kan word, in hulle openbaar is, want God het dit aan hulle geopenbaar.
20 Want sy onsigbare dinge kan van die skepping van die wêreld af in sy werke verstaan en duidelik gesien word, naamlik sy ewige krag en goddelikheid, sodat hulle geen verontskuldiging het nie;
21 omdat hulle, alhoewel hulle God geken het, Hom nie as God verheerlik of gedank het nie; maar hulle het dwaas geword in hul oorlegginge, en hul onverstandige hart is verduister.
22 Terwyl hulle voorgee dat hulle wys is, het hulle dwaas geword
23 en die heerlikheid van die onverganklike God verander in die gelykvormigheid van die beeld van ‘n verganklike mens en van voëls en viervoetige en kruipende diere.
24 Daarom het God hulle ook in die begeerlikhede van hulle harte oorgegee aan onreinheid, om hulle liggame onder mekaar te onteer
25 hulle wat die waarheid van God verruil het vir die leuen en die skepsel vereer en gedien het bo die Skepper wat geprys moet word tot in ewigheid. Amen.
1 Sien die inleiding op die leesreeks hier, en die res van die reeks hier.
2 Die doel van die reeks is nie om ‘n eie verklaring te gee van die boek Romeine nie, of om vir u die leeswerk en verklaarwerk te doen nie. Die doel is soos dit sê, om ‘saam’ met Luther en Calvyn Romeine deur te lees, deur hul kommentare/lesings daarop te raadpleeg, om te sien hoe hul met hierdie boek omgegaan het wat wesentlik sentraal gestaan het in die Protestantse Reformasie van die 16/17de eeu.
3. Ek gee wel hier en daar ‘n raamwerk of opmerkings, en gee ‘n paar aanhalings uit Luther en Calvyn se kommentare, maar net hier en daar wat my opval en wat ek met julle wil deel. So die vertrekpunt is altyd: ad fontes! = terug na die bronne, d.w.s. lees die Skrif (Romeine) en Luther en Calvyn se kommentare self.
4. Enige opmerkings oor ons Romeine lees saam Luther en Calvyn (RLC), kan hier onder of by die facebook inskrywing geplaas word.
5. Hier is Luther en Calvyn se kommentare gratis aanlyn:
LUTHER OOR ROMEINE 1:18-25
1) Dit is veral die filosowe en magtiges van die wêreld wat die kruis verwerp, wat die waarheid van die evangelie onderdruk.
Moreover, in his opinion it was they who most strongly opposed the gospel and the word and the life of the cross and incited others to opposition against it. Therefore, he imputes guilt and sin seemingly to these alone and proclaims the wrath of God upon them. For to no one the preaching of the cross appears so foolish as to the philosophers and the men of power, because it goes contrary to all they are and feel.
2) Paulus spreek hierdie woorde nie net tot die Romeine nie, maar tot alle mense, omdat alle mense kollektiefs skuldig is aan die sonde.
For the sake of a clearer understanding we must note that the apostle rebukes in these words not the Romans only, as many believe. He addresses himself, not to certain persons, but to all people, including the Romans. This can be seen clearly in the words of the apostle below in ch. 3:9 of this letter: “We laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin.”
He therefore excepts none, because he says “all.” One must imagine that, while speaking, the apostle has the entire world before his eyes as if it were one whole body. The members of this body are different; individually they have therefore not done all the apostle charges them with, but altogether they have done all of it (some by committing one fault, and others by committing another), so that he can attribute all these faults to the whole body and not to the head alone. For there can be no doubt that neither all Romans nor all Gentiles were guilty of all of this. But because as nonChristians they were members of this body, they are rebuked one with another. Such is the usage of the Scripture according to the second and fourth rule of Scriptural interpretation, i.e., it passes from a part to the whole and, conversely, from the species to the genus.
3) Predikers moet eerstens prominente leiers aanspreek waar hul in stryd met die evangelie optree en lewe.
The lesson he teaches here is that the preachers of the gospel must first of all rebuke the prominent leaders among the people, not, to be sure, in their own words produced from their own sick and perturbed minds, but in the words of the Gospel; i.e., they must show how and when they act and live counter to the gospel. …
So the letter of Paul is (as all preaching of the word of God must be) like a river that springs from Paradise and like the Nile that inundates all of Egypt. Yet such an inundation must start somewhere. So also the flood which the Lord releases through the apostle Paul covers the whole world and all peoples, but it makes its entry from the heads and leaders of this world and gradually overflows all others. This must be carefully noted. Otherwise, if we follow Lyra and those who agree with him, it will be very difficult to understand the letter, as there will then be no connection between what follows and what precedes, in view of the fact that he sees in the first chapter only the Romans criticized (which opinion also his Prologue supports) and yet what follows must be understood with respect to all nations, indeed the whole mass of the lost human race.
For it is the purpose of the apostle to demonstrate Christ as the savior of all men and not only of the Romans or of the Jews at Rome, though, to be sure, he shows him primarily to them—but then together with them also to others.
4) Die hele skepping getuig van die kennis van God, selfs die afgodedienaars bevestig dit deur die afgode wat hul maak in die plek van God.
That, as we read here, the knowledge of God was open to all men, and especially to idolaters, so that they are without excuses when it is proved to them that they had known the invisible things of God, namely, his very divinity and eternity and power, can plainly be demonstrated by the fact that all who made idols for themselves worshiped them and called them gods or God, believing that God was immortal (i.e., eternal) and also capable and able to help, thereby giving clear evidence that they had the knowledge of God in their hearts. …
And without a doubt, they have it because God gave it to them, as our text says. Their error was that in their worship they did not take the Godhead for what it is in itself, but changed it by fitting it to their own needs and desires. Everyone wanted the Godhead to be in him whom he happened to like, and thus they turned the truth of God into a lie.
5) Die afgodedienaars aanbid nie die ware God nie, maar ‘n verdigsel van hul verstand wat hulself geskep het.
If they did not “glorify him as God” (“ut Deum”) or as if he were God (sicut Deum), did they then glorify something else than God? He obviously seems to indicate this, and what follows has the same meaning: and changed the glory, etc. (Rom. 1:23), i.e., they did not worship him as God but as if he were the likeness of an image, and thus they did not worship God but a figment of their own making. This interpretation I readily accept. The Children of Israel, too, were rebuked for having worshiped Baal and calves, and yet they obviously intended to worship the true God in these symbols and idols, and this they were forbidden to do.
6) Die stappe van verderf is as volg wat lei tot afgodery: ondankbaarheid, nietige denke, duistere hart, dwalinge
Now, take note of the order of the stages of perdition. The first is ingratitude or the failure to be grateful. Thus, Lucifer before the Fall was ungrateful to his Creator. It is the result of self-complacency: forgetting the giver, one delights in accepting gifts as if one had not received them.
The second is vanity: one feeds on one’s own self and all that is created and enjoys that which lets itself be used, and so one becomes necessarily vain “in his own thoughts,” i.e., in all one’s plans, efforts, and undertakings. For whatever one looks for and seeks is altogether vain, because one seeks only himself, i.e., his own glory, delight, and advantage.
The third is deluded blindness: deprived of the truth and immersed in vanity, one necessarily becomes blind in one’s whole feeling and thinking because one is blocked in upon himself. Thus confined to darkness, what else can one undertake but what one who blindly wanders about looks for in his ignorance? For a blind man easily falls into error; indeed, in a way, he is always in error.
Therefore the fourth is to be in error toward God, and this is the worst because it leads to idolatry. To have come this far means to have come to the abyss. For to one who has lost God, nothing is left but to be exposed to every kind of turpitude that the devil invents. The result is that deluge of evils and bloodshed of which the apostle speaks below.
7) Subtiele geestelike afgodery is wanneer ons God aanbid nie soos Hy is nie, maar wat ons uitdink en begeer Hy moet wees.
By the same stages, people even today come to commit spiritual idolatry of a more subtle kind, and it is quite frequent: they worship God not as he is but as they imagine and desire him to be.
Ingratitude, namely, and the love of vanity (i.e., the sense of selfimportance
and of self-righteousness or, as one says, of “good intentions”) delude people terribly, so that they become incorrigible, unable to believe anything else but that they behave splendidly and are pleasing to God. Thus, they make themselves a gracious God, though this does not correspond to reality. And so they worship the product of their own imagination more truly than the true God himself, who they believe resembles this product of their fancy.
Here now “they change him into the likeness of their own imagination” (Rom. 1:23), which exists only in their corruptible minds that know only carnal desires. See, then, how great an evil ingratitude is: it produces a love of vanity, and this results in blindness, and blindness in idolatry, and idolatry brings about a whole whirlpool of vices.
Gratitude, however, keeps the love for God and thus holds the heart directed toward him. Because it is thereby also illumined, it worships, once it is illumined, only the true God, and to this worship there soon attaches itself the whole chorus of virtues.
8) Die ‘oorgee aan hulself’ is ‘n opdrag, ‘n bevel van God. Die Here gebruik die duiwel en bose geeste om sy oordele uit te voer oor hulle wat Hom verwerp.
This “giving up” is not so much a permission as a commission, a command, of God. This is plainly shown in the last chapter of the first book of Kings (I Kings 22:2,2, f.), where the Lord says to the lying spirit that he should entice Ahab, the King of Israel: “Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth and do so.” Then follows the word of the prophet addressed to the same king: “Now, therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets.” So also David said of him who cursed him (II Sam. 16:10): “Because the Lord has said unto him, Curse David, … let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him.” In the same way the Lord orders also the devil or the flesh to tempt and overwhelm a man who deserves before God that this should happen to him because of his impiety. …
9) Die Here beveel nie die mens om boosheid te doen nie, of dat sonde sy wil is nie.
For it is not correct to say that God orders man to do evil—no, one must rather say that he deserts him so that he cannot resist the devil, who now goes into action by the command and will of God. We may twist and turn the matter as much as we want: we must assert that it is God’s will that a man be overwhelmed by sin; moreover, he wills this by his good pleasure in so far as he lets him be overcome by that which he [God] hates most, causing him to become enslaved to that which He intends to punish most. For this is the greatest severity: to deliver someone into the hands of him whom he hates most.
It does not follow from this that God wills sin, even though it is done by his will; but what follows is that he does not will it at all and that he hates it. For he lets it be done by his will in order that a man be subjected to what he hates most so that this man may know what a terrible judgment hangs over him; and so God by his will lets that become a fact which he hates most only for the purpose of punishing him, for there is nothing more base than sin. Therefore, in order to let a man who is already covered with shame become subject to sin, He lets that be done which he consistently forbids. Therefore, God lets sin be done, not for sin’s sake, but for the sake of penalty and punishment. Just as a man who sins does not will to sin for the sake of sinning (for he would rather that there were no sin) but for the sake of a good which he pursues, so also God wills sin, not for the sake of sin (for he, too, would rather that it were not and he hates all that is sin), but for the sake of punishment and the ill that is contained in it so that he may have regard for the punishment rather than the sin.
This, to be sure, God alone may will. For he is not bound not to will that there be sin, although by his nature he necessarily can neither will nor love it, but he can will and love it, not in so far as it is sin, but in so far as it is punishment. Just so, a father hates to see his son dirtied and stained, yet when the son commits a grave offense, he elects to stain him not in order thereby to please himself but in order to soil the son. Those, therefore, who want to infer from this that God loves and wills evil think in much too simple terms, but still more simple-minded are those who deny that God wills evil only in order that they be not forced to the conclusion that he allows sins to happen.
Therefore, God measures justly when he elects what is evil in sin for the purpose of punishing man, for thereby he elects what is good in sin. For punishment consists (not, as Lyra thinks, in sinning itself per accidens, but) in the vileness of sin. For it is something painful to be or have been subject to a vile sin. The apostle clearly indicates this when he says: “Wherefore God gave them up to sin, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves” (Rom. 1:24). For no other punishment is so ignominious as that which one receives when one is cast into sin. For it is more shameful to be cast into a vile sin than to bear any kind of penalty.
Hence, it is not correct to say, as Lyra does, that because God withholds his grace and thus makes sin possible, sin is per accidens also the penalty for sin. No, no! Sin, or rather the shame which is connected with sin, is in itself the penalty. The fact that grace is withheld is not the punishment. God intends it to be so; he despises sin, to be sure, yet because he cannot bring about shame except in connection with sin, he wills that a man commit sin in order that this shame should overwhelm him. If it were at all possible that such ignominy could become a fact without sin, God would bring this about and he would prohibit sin. But this cannot be.
10) Luther se beskrywing van onreinheid en om die liggaam te onteer. ‘n Lewe van gebed hou ons rein, na gees en liggaam.
The apostle identifies this kind of dishonor as uncleanness and effeminacy. In I Cor. 6:9 f., he says: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, etc., shall inherit the Kingdom of God.” And in Eph. 5:3: “All uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becomes saints.” And in II Cor. 12:21: “They have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they committed.” He calls it also a contumely and a disgrace. For as the glory of the body (at least in this connection) lies in chastity, continence, and, at least, its proper use, so its disgrace consists in its unnatural abuse. Just as a golden vessel is ennobled when it is used as a container of a noble wine, and disgraced when it is used as a container of excrement and filth, so our body (in this respect) is ordained to an honorable marriage and to chastity which is still more honorable. But it is most disgraced and humiliated, not by adultery and unchastity, but by being polluted by an even worse turpitude.
Now “uncleanness,” or effeminacy, is every intentional and individual
pollution that can be effected in various ways, as by the passionate incitement of lascivious thoughts or by the rubbing of the hands or by the petting of another’s body, especially that of a woman, or by obscene movements, etc. I call this kind of uncleanness “intentional” in order to except that pollution which may happen during the night, or even the day, and during waking hours but, as many experience it, is involuntary because it is not brought about intentionally. I call it “individual” because when it happens in sexual intercourse with a person of the same or the other sex it is called by a different name.
Rule: I hardly believe that a young person is chaste if he has no spark of devotion to God in his heart but goes about freely without a concern for God. As he must live either by the flesh or the spirit, either his flesh or his spirit must become inflamed. And there is no better victory over the ardor of the body than the flight and aversion from it by means of devout prayer. For when the spirit is filled with fervor, the body soon cools off and becomes cold, and conversely.
11) Sonder die Gees kan niemand reg dink oor God nie (dus ware teo-logie beoefen nie).
In their presumptuousness they dare assert that God’s nature, his righteousness, and his mercy are what they think they ought to be, as if they were filled and, indeed, drunk with the spirit that searches the deep things of God, which in fact they completely lack. Of this sort are the heretics, the Jews, the folk of spiritual pride, and all who are outside God’s grace. For no one can think rightly about God unless the Spirit of God is in him. Apart from him, he will speak and judge wrongly about whatever may come under his judgment—God’s righteousness or mercy, himself or others. For the Spirit of God must give testimony to our spirit.
CALVYN OOR ROMEINE 1:18-25
1) Goddeloosheid en ongeregtigheid wys op die ondankbaarheid van die mens. God word daardeur van sy eer gestroop.
But by these two words one thing is designated, and that is, ingratitude towards God; for we thereby offend in two ways: it is said to be asebeia, impiety, as it is a dishonoring of God; it is adikia, unrighteousness, because man, by transferring to himself what belongs to God, unjustly deprives God of his glory. The word wrath, according to the usage of Scripture, speaking after the manner of men, means the vengeance of God; for God, in punishing, has, according to our notion, the appearance of one in wrath. It imports, therefore, no such emotion in God, but only has a reference to the perception and feeling of the sinner who is punished. Then he says that it is revealed from heaven; though the expression, from heaven, is taken by some in the sense of an adjective, as though he had said “the wrath of the celestial God;” yet I think it more emphatical, when taken as having this import, “Wheresoever a man may look around him, he will find no salvation; for the wrath of God is poured out on the whole world, to the full extent of heaven.”
2) Die skepping getuig van God, en alle mense behoort deur daarna te kyk die Outeur van die skepping te erken.
By saying, that God has made it manifest, he means, that man was created to be a spectator of this formed world, and that eyes were given him, that he might, by looking on so beautiful a picture, be led up to the Author himself.
3) Weens die sonde is die mens blind om God reg te ken, daarom het hy geloof nodig om God weer reg te ken.
So that they are inexcusable. It hence clearly appears what the consequence is of having this evidence — that men cannot allege any thing before God’s tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly condemned. Yet let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not found to be sufficient. We are not however so blind, that we can plead our ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped: but our reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or what sort of being God is.
Hence the Apostle in Hebrews 11:3, ascribes to faith the light by which man can gain real knowledge from the work of creation, and not without reason; for we are prevented by our blindness, so that we reach not to the end in view; we yet see so far, that we cannot pretend any excuse. Both these things are strikingly set forth by Paul in Acts 14:16-17, when he says, that the Lord in past times left the nations in their ignorance, and yet that he left them not without witness (amarturon,) since he gave them rain and fertility from heaven. But this knowledge of God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation, which Christ mentions in John 17:3, and in which we are to glory, as Jeremiah teaches us, Jeremiah 9:24
4) Deur die dwaasheid van die gemoed skep die sondige mens ‘n fiktiewe nuwe god.
Having feigned such a God as they could comprehend according to their carnal reason, they were very far from acknowledging the true God: but devised a fictitious and a new god, or rather a phantom. And what he says is, that they changed the glory of God; for as though one substituted a strange child, so they departed from the true God. Nor are they to be excused for this pretense, that they believe that God dwells in heaven, and that they count not the wood to be God, but his image; for it is a high indignity to God, to form so gross an idea of his majesty as to dare to make an image of him. But from the wickedness of such a presumption none were exempt, neither priests, nor statesmen, nor philosophers, of whom the most sound-minded, even Plato himself, sought to find out some likeness of God.
5) Die Here gee die goddelose oor aan hul dwalinge en afvalligheid, wat hul verdien het.
God therefore gave them up, etc. As impiety is a hidden evil, lest they should still find an evasion, he shows, by a more palpable demonstration, that, they cannot escape, but must be held fast by a just condemnation, since such fruits have followed this impiety as cannot be viewed otherwise than manifest evidences of the Lord’s wrath. As the Lord’s wrath is always just, it follows, that what has exposed them to condemnation, must have preceded it. By these evidences then he now proves the apostasy and defection of men: for the Lord indeed does so punish those, who alienate themselves from his goodness, that he casts them headlong into various courses which lead to perdition and ruin. And by comparing the vices, of which they were guilty, with the impiety, of which he had before accused them, he shows that they suffered punishment through the just judgment of God: for since nothing is dearer to us than our own honor, it is extreme blindness, when we fear not to bring disgrace on ourselves; and it is the most suitable punishment for a reproach done to the Divine Majesty. This is the very thing which he treats of to the end of the chapter; but he handles it in various ways, for the subject required ample illustration. …
6) Die oorsaak van sonde is nie van die Here nie.
As to the manner in which God gives up or delivers men to wickedness, it is by no means necessary in this place to discuss a question so intricate, (longam — tedious.) It is indeed certain, that he not only permits men to fall into sin, by allowing them to do so, and by conniving at them; but that he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges things, that they are led and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as well as by the devil. He therefore adopts the word, give up, according to the constant usage of Scripture; which word they forcibly wrest, who think that we are led into sin only by the permission of God: for as Satan is the minister of God’s wrath, and as it were the executioner, so he is armed against us, not through the connivance, but by the command of his judge. God, however, is not on this account cruel, nor are we innocent, inasmuch as Paul plainly shows, that we are not delivered up into his power, except when we deserve such a punishment. Only we must make this exception, that the cause of sin is not from God, the roots of which ever abide in the sinner himself; for this must be true,
“Thine is perdition, O Israel; in me only is thy help.” (Hosea 13:9) 
By connecting the desires or lusts of man’s heart with uncleanness, he indirectly intimates what sort of progeny our heart generates, when left to itself. The expression, among themselves, is not without its force; for it significantly expresses how deep and indelible are the marks of infamy imprinted on our bodies.
Die hele reeks is hier beskikbaar: Reformasie 500: LRLC
Leave a Reply