Study of Romans - Rom. 1:2

Note: All my commentaries are agreed here that the word “before” or perhaps “afore” is important because it erases all doubt of novelty. I have only included Calvin’s commentary on the subject but the impact of that one word is felt by all and commented on by all.

“Which He promised before…”
¨      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 had said, “Christ came not on 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.” John Calvin
¨      The meaning is not, that the history of the Gospel was promised by the prophets, but that Jesus Christ, with all His benefits, (which is the direct subject of the Gospel history and revelation,) was promised or foreshown by them. Matthew Poole
¨      […] let me beg you to look and see what a very long time ago these things were foretold. For when God is about to do openly some great things, He announces them of a long time before, to practice men’s hearing for the reception of them when they come. Chrysostom
¨      […] that Gospel which… was thus expressly committed to the Christian apostles, was in a more obscure manner promised, and in some manner declared and exhibited, by His prophets, in the records of the Holy Scriptures, on which such bright luster is now thrown by comparing the predictions with the events. Philip Doddridge
¨      That is the Gospel which Paul was sent to preach, was the same system of grace and truth, which from the beginning had been predicted and partially unfolded in the writings of the Old Testament. Charles Hodge
¨      The Gospel is… what God had conceived in His own breast from eternity. This mystery was hid in Him from the beginning of the world, and was ordained before the world was; in time God was pleased to make it known to the sons of men. John Gill

Note: There is some minor discussion as to who the term prophet may be applied to as you can see Hendriksen refer to below. I simply don’t think there is any legitimate reason to get sidetracked addressing that though and have included his comment exclusively. Anyone else who addressed it among my commentaries agrees with Hendriksen but some have taken the time to refute others that may make claims that are otherwise. But no matter what else others will debate about we can use it in a general sense of the Old Testament prophets without fear of finding ourselves in error.

“[…] through His prophets…”
¨      […] as antiquity is often fabulous, he brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that he might remove every suspicion. John Calvin
¨      When Paul says, “His prophets” he has reference, of course, not only to such holy men of God as Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., but also to Moses, Samuel, David, etc. William Hendriksen
¨      Though the Roman church… [is] here reminded that in embracing the Gospel they had not cast off Moses and the prophets, but only yielded themselves the more intelligently and profoundly to the testimony of God in that earlier revelation. JFB, David Brown

“[…] in the Holy Scriptures.”
¨      He in the third place adds, that their testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures. John Calvin
¨      […] one of the strongest proofs of the divine origin of the Gospel is found in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The advent, the character, the work, the kingdom of the Messiah, are there predicted, and it was therefore out of the Scriptures that the apostles reasoned, to convince the people that Jesus is the Christ; and to this connection between the two dispensations they constantly refer, in proof of their doctrines. Charles Hodge

Personal Summary:

You ever watch a show or movie where someone is speaking a foreign language and as they show the subtitle at the bottom of the screen, which in English is a few words making up a sentence, the person on the screen seems to talk forever? It takes them a minute to say what we could have said in a matter of seconds. While I have heard it said that English is a very difficult language to learn I must say that we at least seem to have a very efficient language as opposed to many others. But in relation to this verse we see, as with many others in the word of God, that it is amazing how our efficient language can only portray the barest glimpse of the deepest meaning included in a given passage. I wonder how often the brevity of a verse can lead us to naturally dismiss it without contemplating all that it entails?

Here we have an example of a verse we may have been prone to read and move along from without giving it much thought. After all, in our minds which have been conditioned on the reality and truth of the New Testaments we were raised with we don’t doubt the things that Paul is testifying to here. But more than Paul establishing his bona fide, there is actual application here for us as well as for those Paul was writing to in his own day.

Calvin says, “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.”

Hendriksen agrees with this verse’s impact when he says, “This passage is indeed very important. It shows us how Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wants us to regard the Old Testament. He clearly views the old and the new dispensation as belonging together. He regards (a) the Old Testament and (b) the good news of salvation as proclaimed by Jesus and His messengers, as being a unit. Speaking by and large we can say that the Old Testament contains the promises; the New Testament shows how these promises had been, were being, and were going to be fulfilled.”

Matthew Poole adds, “He hereby intimates, that there is a great harmony and consent betwixt the prophets and apostles, the doctrine of the Old Testament and the New.”

We live in a time, perhaps not unique to us alone, where many are inclined to one of two errors: either a) they disregard the Old Testament altogether; or, b) they overestimate the Old which by default abrogates the clear testimony of the New. Both are error and both stand staunchly opposed to the testimony of Scripture. We are seeing in our day legitimate assaults on our faith as a result of these two errors.  The errors of Sacramentalism and an abandonment of Justification by Faith, even within Reformed churches, are symptomatic of this error. The Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul, and Emergent crowds find themselves in this category.

It is just as dangerous now as it was in Paul’s day. It inevitably leads either to ramped legalism or aggressively moves towards antinomianism. We have Christians running around today refusing to say or write the name of God, as if Christ had said “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our YHWH who art in heaven…” There are Christians running around panicking because they ate this food or that food and even worse did it on the Passover! Then there are those who seem to be chasing after the thought that Paul refutes in Rom. 6:1 and seeking to abandon the Moral Law entirely, or at least whatever part they no longer wish to adhere to. In Paul’s own day the Jews refused to acknowledge the harmony of the Old and the New and they were lost as unbelievers. They too thought they were earning their way into God’s favor and eternal rest, they denied Christ by refusing to acknowledge that He was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and they were broken off from the tree. They had what they had been waiting for and they rejected it.

Paul here tells them clearly that the Old looked forward to the New and was fulfilled in it. The Old Testament ultimately fails if not paired with the New and the New Testament stands on similar ground. They need each other; they are not disconnected themes that stand opposed to one another but beautiful harmonious revelations of God’s will for all of mankind. Nothing on earth can be found that is more beautiful than the Gospels. They are the revealing, the grand unveiling, of God’s plan for redeeming the elect; it is the much anticipated fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. With bated breath all of history looked forward to the moment when the Christ would appear on the scene and Paul here says, “The time has come, it is here! I have been sent to share this good news with you!” But alas, those in Paul’s own time, like those in our day, made the error that cost them so much: they refused to see how the two work together in harmony and as a result rejected, in sin, much that was there for the good of their souls.

Let us understand the simple rhyme Hendriksen leaves for us, “The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is by the New revealed.” Or perhaps it is sufficient to hear Paul tell us as plainly in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So then let us dedicate ourselves to the study of the entire canon of Scripture that we indeed may be ready for every good work to the glory of our Father in heaven. What an act of love that He has left us His word and oh how foolish we would be if we were not to use it in its entirety. May the Lord give us wisdom to understand and apply the clear testimony of his Word, Amen.