Christ Suffered for the Sins of men:
1) I understand that Christ designs by these words to animate the dejected, and to awaken fear in the imperfect, in those who have not attained to serve from love; as though He should say to them, be assured of this, that the man, who shall confess Me, I will confess him; and that the man, who shall deny Me, I will deny him. Where it is to be understood that they confess Christ before men, who, having stifled in themselves all cravings after earthly glory and self-indulgence, state frankly, without fear for life or for honor, that Jesus is the Messiah, promised in the law; that He is the Son of God, one and the same with God, who, having taken upon Himself the sins of men, and having been chastised for them, has reconciled us to God; and that they enjoy this reconciliation who believe. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882), 82-183. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]
Christ satisfied for Original Sin:
1) Men easily believe, from the declaration of the Holy Scriptures, that God is supremely omnipotent and just: they believe that Christ is perfectly innocent and free from every sin; they believe that Christ suffered by the will of God; because in none of those things do they find inward opposition adequate to induce them to disbelieve what the Holy Scriptures affirm; and, not to exclude the benefit of Christ, they moreover believe that Christ rendered satisfaction for original sin, for they do not find opposition even in this, inasmuch as their consciences do not accuse them on the score of original sin; and as they do not recognize any personal blame attached to it, they readily bring themselves to believe, that without personal merit that is pardoned to them which they do not recognize as a personal failing.
But when it is propounded to them, as an article of faith, that Christ rendered satisfaction to God for the sins which they severally committed,–although they possess the Holy Scriptures, which testify this to them in the most ample manner, nay, they all proclaim this harmoniously,–they suddenly draw back, because they find inward opposition in their own consciences, and thus they resolve to restrict the benefit of Christ solely to original sin, understanding it in their own fashion, or even extending it to their own sins, but with the addition of their own satisfaction, as though Christ had declared: ‘I have rendered satisfaction for the sins of you all, but with the covenant that each individual render satisfaction for his own,’–and they do not consider the insult which they thus put upon Christ: and they do not consider it because they do not feel it, and they do not feel it because they do not know Christ. Juan de Valdés, Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés, ed. Benjamin B. Wiffen, (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865), 527-528. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]
Christ suffered for the sins of all men:
1) So that in saying, “when I came to you,” he may mean, when first I came to you to preach the Gospel. In saying, “with excellency of speech,” I think he means with rhetorical art. And by the expression, “or of wisdom,” I think him to mean, or with the knowledge of human Philosophy. It may also be, that he may mean the wisdom, of which he says afterwards that he spoke among the perfect. And I understand the expression, “declaring unto you the testimony of God” to he the, same as if he had said, manifesting to you the indulgence or general pardon, which God has wrought for all men, hy punishing in the flesh of Christ all the sins of all men. So that “the testimony of God” is tantamount to his having said, that which is testified on the part of God. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church at Corinth, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 29.
2) And further exalting Christ, he says, “and Him crucified,” meaning, that if he attached importance to the fact of his knowledge of Christ risen from the dead, he might even in that show wisdom : but studiously attaching importance but to the knowledge of Christ and Him crucified, he could make no show of wisdom. St. Paul well knew Christ raised from the dead and glorified, and he also preached Him risen and glorified; but he did not preach the divine wisdom that there is, and which he knew to be, in this resurrection and glorification, because his special ministry consisted in preaching Christ crucified: which preaching comprehends the remission of sins. Where it is especially to be understood that the duty of the Evangelical preacher is to persuade himself to know no other thing in this world but Christ crucified, since it is his proper office to publish the indulgence or general pardon made to men, confirmed by the blood of Christ, which He shed on the Cross; his duty is to preach nothing else but Christ crucified; and hence it is well for him to be persuaded that he knows nothing beyond this. And I understand that they know Christ crucified, who know by experience the power of the Cross of Christ, for that in Christ, when hanging on the Cross, God punished the sins of all men, and for that in slaying His own flesh on the Cross, Christ slew that of all men. It is indeed true, that they only enjoy the one or the other, who, by a lively faith, are incorporated into Christ, who, feeling peace of conscience, know that Christ on the Cross was punished for their sins; and who, feeling mortification of the flesh, know that Christ, in slaying His on the cross, slew theirs too. Those who are determined to know nothing but this, preach nothing but this ; and preaching nothing but this, they rightly preach the Gospel of God, the forgiveness and general pardon which is announced by it. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church at Corinth, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 30-31. [Some reformatting; and underlining mine.]
3) In saying that the foundation “is Jesus Christ,” he understands, that the first thing which is to be propounded to those who are to be God’s building, is, that they make God’s justice executed upon Christ their own, by giving credit to that which is published in the Gospel, concerning the forgiveness or general pardon which God has granted to all men, in chastising in Christ the sins of all. This is the foundation of God’s building, and where this foundation is not laid,.the building is not God’s, but man’s ; and thus it is not divine, but human; it is not spiritual, but carnal. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church at Corinth, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 55. [Some reformatting; and underlining mine.]
4) [1 Corinthians 15:1-9:] St. Paul authoritatively declares the preaching of the Gospel to consist in the proclamation, that Christ died for our sins, and that He rose again from the dead. And because our resurrection depends upon the resurrection of Christ, as the resurrection and liberation of the members depends upon that of the Head, the Apostle, desirous of persuading these Corinthians, and of proving to them that we shall rise again, first persuades them, and proves to them, that Christ is risen, counting the witnesses who bear testimony to it, and who challenge belief as eyewitnesses; and St. Paul ranks himself among the other witnesses, stating the opinion he held both of himself and of resurrection.
Here I shall not occupy myself in solving, whether the order which St. Paul lays down here agrees with that laid down by the Evangelists, with reference to the persons by whom Christ allowed Himself to be seen after His resurrection, for I do not profess to verify and solve things (simply) curious, or matters of curiosity; neither shall I occupy myself in verifying how it is that St. Paul says that He was seen of the twelve Apostles, there being at that time but eleven, since Judas had previously died. For beyond its being a mere matter of curiosity, there appears to me to be no impropriety in St. Paul’s entitling the company twelve, which while Christ lived amongst them was twelve, and which after Christ’s ascension again became twelve.
In saying, “first of all,” he means amongst the preliminary statements of my preaching. Where it is said ” that Christ died for our sins,” we are always to understand that God inflicted the chastisement of the sins of us all upon Christ’s flesh, chastising in Him that which had to he chastised in us.
That expression, “according to the Scriptures” may be referred to what we read in Isaiah liii. 5-10. St. Paul not only states that Christ died for our sins, but he likewise affirms that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; I wish that he had quoted them, since he both knew them and understood them. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church at Corinth, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 266. [Some reformatting; and underlining mine.]
5) This consideration here presents itself to me, which truly excites in me the greatest wonder: that ten words of St. Peter, after the coming of the Holy Spirit, were of greater power to convert men, than were all those which Christ has here spoken. By which consideration I learn three things. The first, how incapable we men are of divine things, however much we may hear them discussed, whilst the Holy Spirit does not inwardly move us. The second, how much more generous is God with men, since He has chastised all our sins in Christ, than He was before that He had chastised them. And the third, that Christ’s peculiar office in the world was, not to convert men, but to die for them, taking the sins of them all upon Himself. And by how much the more I consider this, so much the more am I assured of this truth, that God, having chastised my sins in Christ, will never chastise me for them; and I know this assurance works in me this most singular effect, that it mortifies my desires to sin, and brings me to such a state, that I could wish to be deprived of all bodily and outward pleasure, in order to be wholly absorbed in the consideration of this most singular benefit of Christ, which affectionately attaches me to God and to Christ, in the highest degree. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882), 133.
6) The terms in which the Eternal Father gives us testimony of Christ are worthy of profound consideration, since it is so, that by them we understand that Christ is the Son of God; and because He calls Him, “His beloved” we understand that Christ is the Son of God, wholly otherwise than are they so, whom Holy Scripture calls children of God, since Christ is the beloved, the dear and favored one, and He is the first born and only begotten, His generation being divine, and, as might be said, “Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting” (Micah v. 2), being one and the same, and of the same substance with God, the same as the Father. And, therefore, with Christ alone has God been, and still is, well pleased, for, as says Isaiah (liii. 10), “In Him the pleasure of the Lord has prospered,” meaning, that in Christ, God’s purpose has been accomplished; for that. He laying the sins of us all upon Christ, and chastising of us all in Christ, Christ bore the chastisement without deviating a point from the will of God. And it is well to observe that in that expression, “I am well pleased,” this word in the Greek, eudokia, is that, which St. Paul uses, when he speaks of our predestination. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882), 299-300. [Some spelling modernized, and underlining mine.]
7) And from Christ’s reply, we learn that the main thing that God desires of man is love, desiring that this love be without the slightest taint of personal interest, that it be most pure, most perfect; and then it is so, when man sets all his love and all his affection upon God, having nothing in his heart, in his soul, or in his mind, but God only; delighting himself in Him only, and keeping Him constantly impressed upon His memory, never allowing it to wander from Him. This is what God desires of every man; for this God caresses them, blesses them, with gifts, benefits, and favors.
And thus it is, that God, desiring to be loved by man, and knowing that the greatest impediment he has to love Him is the knowledge that he has offended Him, because, as is commonly said, “he that offends does not pardon” God has laid all the sins of all men upon His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord; and He has chastised them all in Him, giving a general pardon to all men, in order that the impediment to love being removed, they may apply themselves to love Him, as He desires to be beloved of them. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882), 393. [Some spelling modernized, and underlining mine.]
8) VALDÉS: I will give you, Signora, some principles, by means of which, commending yourself to God, He will Himself reveal the rest to you. And so I say, since you already believe that Christ is truly God and truly man, as God, equal with His Eternal Father, and one and the same with Him, the true knowledge of Christ consists, Signora, in knowing and considering to what purpose the Son of God came into the world, and was made man; why He suffered, and why He rose again.
GIULIA : I wish to learn from you how you consider these three VALDÉS: You may consider, Signora, that Christ came into the world to make satisfaction for original sin. Because this having been an infinite crime in respect to God, who was offended, it was necessary that the satisfaction should be infinite, and this could not be made except by God Himself, who is infinite; therefore the Son of God, being made man, has made satisfaction for the sin of the first man, and together with his, for all the sins of all persons who had been, were then, are now, and shall yet be; and to them who forego the benefit of this propitiation it win be wanting by their own fault. Christ came to qualify men to become the sons of God. He came to show us the way to heaven He came to confound the pride of the flesh, and to preach humility of spirit. He came to destroy death. He came to break the power of the devil. He came to communicate with us of His own spirit, by which we might do the will of God; for by the law alone had God before declared His will to us; but the law did not give us the power by which we could fulfil it. He came to show us the love that His Eternal Father bears to the human race, which is most perfectly seen and known in Christ. And in short. He came to open to us the gates of Paradise, and to qualify us so that we might enter therein.
Now considering these causes for which Christ came, think you whether you could acquire by any other means than by the Son of God made man, so many and such singular blessings? Besides this, when you wish to consider wherefore He suffered, Christ Himself shall teach you, saying, Cum exaltatus fuero a terra omnia traham ad meipsum; that is, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things unto Me;”[1] as though He said: In order to uproot people from the things of this world, and enamor them with the things of life eternal, it is needful that I be crucified; and saying in another place that it was necessary He should suffer on the cross, that all who believed in Him might be saved.2 And know for a certainty that nowhere can we better know God this in Christ crucified.
I can say yet more, that if the contemplation of Christ crucified does not disenamor you of the things of the world and enamor you of the things of God, you will be always miserably bound to created things. So much so, that one of the reasons why I think St. Paul calls Christ the mediator between God and man3 is, because we can neither know, believe, nor love God, but by contemplating Christ crucified; who, suffering, made it sweet to suffer; and enduing, made it easy to endure; and being injuriously treated, made injuries sweet; and dying, gave to death itself a relish. Do not these reasons appear to you most sufficient why Christ should have suffered? Does it not seem to you that Christ has shown so much love in this as to satisfy us why we should disenamor ourselves of self-love, and enamor ourselves with God? But considering still further, you will find that Christ arose from the dead that we might arise with Him, as well in spirit in this life, as in body in the life eternal And the spiritual resurrection is when through dying to the Old man we come to be revived in the New man. This is the passing from death unto life; and thus, as Christ through dying came to the resurrection, so we by denial of seek come to the newness of life. And this is what Christ says to Nicodemus: “Except a man be born of water and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”4 You will consider also in Christ, that He ascended up on high to raise our souls to the contemplation of heavenly things. To these St. Paul invites us, saying: ” If, brethren, ye are risen spiritually with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of His Eternal Father. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”5 And lastly, consider that Christ sent the Holy Spirit that we might be taught the truth of these things, that thereby all love of earthly things being banished, we might be inflamed with the love of spiritual things, and recover and restore within us that image of God to the likeness of which we were created. Juan de Valdés, Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés, ed. Benjamin B. Wiffen, (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865), 130-131. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified; one footnote value inserted as missing from the text; and underlining mine.]
9) Here I understand two most important things. The one, that if the rigor of the justice which was executed upon Christ, as well outwardly as inwardly, had been executed upon us all, each one getting his own share for his own offences and sins, we all should have gone to perdition; there not being one of us equal to bear upon himself that part of the chastisement which he would have had to suffer as his share, had Christ not satisfied the justice of God for us. And I understand that the going into perdition would have consisted in this, that no one of us would have been equal to stand up firm and steadfast under the suffering without succumbing, and thus we should have failed in our obedience to God. And therefore Caiaphas rightly said, if he had but rightly felt it, Expedit nobis, ut unus homo moriatur pro populo, et non tota gens pereat. It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (John xi.). The other thing that I understand here is, that it was more than necessary that He should be more than man, nay, that He should be the Son of God, who had to reconcile men with God, for having to be chastised for the sins of all, knowing and feeling Himself charged with them all just as if He had committed them all, that He might be able to stand up against the agony, fear, and sadness, the shame and confusion, without living way, or in any manner, or to any extent, failing in obedience to God, persevering and standing stead fast and constant in it, as did Jesus Christ our Lord, who is compared to a lamb that is led to the slaughter, as well on account of the innocence of His life, as of the obedience with which He was pleased to be sacrificed for us, being the Son of God, one and the same essence with God, which obedience is and will be to Him glory and honor evermore. Amen. Juan de Valdés, Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés, ed. Benjamin B. Wiffen, (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865), 462-463. [Some spelling modernized, and underlining mine.]
10) Thus it was from St. Paul’s being in a state of unbelief from his disbelieving that Christ was the Son of God, that He was the Messiah promised in the Law, that He died for the sins of every one, that He was raised for the resurrection of every one, that He was glorified for the glorification of every one; it proceeded, that he persecuted and slew those who believed and preached this, thinking thereby to render God service; as others successively have done, and continue to do, from the same motive that St. Paul did, who, like St Paul, have erred and do err against God; not through inconsiderateness, for he and they are mindful of what they do; nor from malice, for they do not from self-interest hate those whom they persecute; but through unbelief, from not believing in Christ. Whence I understand that it came to pass, that God, exercising mercy towards St. Paul, gave him to know Christ, and thus from a notorious persecutor he became a most distinguished preacher; which, as I understand, has happened to those who have erred as St. Paul erred. Juan de Valdés, Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés, ed. Benjamin B. Wiffen, (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865), 548. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]
11) The first is, that, since it is true that God does not ask men to offer sacrifices, in asking them to believe, to accept the grace, the remission of sins, and reconciliation with God, which the Gospel offers them, showing them that God, having laid upon Christ the sins of all men, has punished them all in Him, and thus His justice is satisfied,–the man, however sinful and bad he may be, who shall not hold himself as pardoned by and reconciled to God, and thus as just, by that very fact, will testify of himself that he does not know God, since he distrusts His word, and that he does not know Christ, since he wants assurance that he is justified in Christ; and if such an one shall pretend to justify himself by works, he will testify concerning himself that he does not know the natural inclination of man. So that I must either know myself to be righteous in Christ, although I recognize myself to be a sinner in myself, or I must deny what the Gospel affirms, that God has punished in Christ the iniquities and sins of all men, and mine with theirs: or I am constrained to say that God is unjust, punishing sins twice, once in Christ and again in me. And because it would be an act of impiety to say this, and to deny the other would be an act of infidelity, it remains that I am constrained to hold myself as pardoned by and reconciled to God, and thus, as justified in Christ, making the natural light submit to the spiritual light.
The second thing that I learn is: that it being true that the impossibility which man finds in accepting this holy Gospel of Christ, proceeds from man’s ignorance of himself and of God, it is every man’s duty to strive very earnestly to know himself and his natural inclination derived from Adam, and to know God, mainly occupying himself with continued prayer, praying to God affectionately and fervently that He would open the eyes of his mind, so that he may attain to both these kinds of knowledge, and praying that if He has begun to open them for him, He would continue to open them more every hour. And in this manner, if he has not commenced to accept the holy Gospel of Christ, setting himself about the removal of the impossibility, he will begin to accept it, and, if he shall have begun to accept, the difficulty being removed which he finds in accepting it, he will accept it more and better, faith working efficaciously within him to mortify him and to vivify him. By these things the Christian faith is confirmed in us, which served as the foundation to that most divine confession of St. Peter, when he said to Christ in Matt. xvi. 1 6, ‘Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi,’ ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To Him be glory for evermore. Amen. Juan de Valdés, Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés, ed. Benjamin B. Wiffen, (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865), 561-562. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]
12) St. Paul, following out his design, says that there is not that in “the free gift of God” which there is in the sin of the one man, Adam; and desiring herein to explain himself, he says, that indeed condemnation came upon men through the sin of one man. So that one sin condemned many, but that” the free gift of God” is efficacious, in justifying men, not only as to the one crime or sin which condemned them to death, but likewise as to all the other crimes and sins, by which each of them has individually rendered himself a greater sinner and a greater enemy to God. So that “God’s free gift” extends itself to the original sin, and to the particular sins of every man: and herein it goes beyond the opinion of those, who would restrict the benefit of Christ to original sin only; and even that of those, who will have it, that Christ has satisfied for the offence only, and that every man has individually to give satisfaction for the penalty: and it likewise goes beyond what a godly person might have doubted, saying, I confess that just as God contemplating me not in myself, but in Adam, has condemned me to death, so likewise contemplating me not in myself, but in Christ, He accepts me as just and entitles me to resurrection; but as to that wherein I have sinned of myself, why shall He not contemplate me in myself? And I say that it goes beyond that, for St. Paul states that “the free gift” is of many offences unto justification. So that God does not contemplate those who believe, not even in that wherein they offend of themselves, but through Christ and in Christ, with whose righteousness He covers and enfolds them. Juan de Valdés, Commentary Upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 72-73. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]
13) In saying, “an offering for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh,” I understand him to say: That God, when He executed the rigor of His justice (upon flesh), meaning upon the flesh of Christ, He condemned sin in the flesh of all men.
By “sin” he means that wherein the flesh sins; so that in saying, ” He condemned,” it may be understood, He chastised; and thus this will be the meaning: That God, in chastising all the sins of all men in the flesh of Christ, which was in the likeness of sinful flesh, made that possible which was impossible to the Law.
He says that God wrought this in order that “the righteousness of the Law” (might be fulfilled in us), meaning that God’s design, when He chastised the sins of all men in the flesh of Christ, was, that we Christians should attain the righteousness of the Law. He means that we, knowing the depravity of our flesh, and becoming by faith members of Christ, should come to attain the righteousness designed by the Law that men should attain,’ which we do attain by accepting the justice of God executed upon Christ as our own; for in being members of Christ, we have satisfied God’s justice in Christ, we having suffered together with Christ. Juan de Valdés, Commentary Upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 118-119. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]
14) What he here calls “being cast off,” he has previously called blindness and fall. And thus they, whom God casts off, not desiring to retain them as His own, come to be His.
To fall is peculiarly incident to the blind.
He says, ” the reconciling of the world,” because God, when He punished the sins of all the world in Christ, accepted all men into friendship. True, indeed, it is that none enjoy this friendship save them who believe.
In saying, ” the receiving of them,” he means their being admitted to reconciliation through Christ. In saying” life from amongst the dead,” he means resurrection and the life eternal. . Juan de Valdés, Commentary Upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 207. [Underlining mine.]
15) 14. That God wrought works that were more fatherly for this Hebrew people, and that the more God did for them, the more they practiced their malevolence and their impiety against God (Ps. 94 [Ps. 95]).
15. That when the time appointed by the divine Majesty arrived, the Word of God, whom the Holy Scripture calls the Son of God, took human flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary, God having willed to restore all things by his Word, just as he had made them all by his Word (John 1; Mt. L; Phil. 3 [Phil. 2J; Col. 1).
16. That this incarnate Word is the Messiah, promised to the Hebrews in the Law and in the Prophets, whom we call Christ, which is the same as Messiah or Anointed (John 3,4).
17. That upon this Word of God incarnate, upon this Son of God, upon this Christ, God placed all the iniquities, all the rebellions, and all the sins of all men, he being most innocent and free from all sin. God chastised them all in him with the same rigor as if he had committed them all, even to taking from him on the cross his life as a son of Adam and as a passible and mortal man. God afterwards resurrected and glorified him for his obedience, giving him absolute power in heaven and on earth (1 Pet. 2; Mt. 28; Col. 1).
18. That Christ, having ascended into heaven, sent the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, upon those he had elected and taken for his own while he conversed among men (Acts 1). Juan de Valdés, The Manner which Ought to be Observed in Instructing the Children of Christians from Childhood about Religious Matters,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison, (Grand Rapids Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 1:531. [underlining mine.]
Potentially ambiguous comment:
1) III. 25, 26.–To show His righteousness by the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness; that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus.
Many men affecting great learning have raved, and have talked nonsense as to their apprehension of these words, because understanding St. Paul to refer that clause, “the remission of sins that are past,” to what he said above, that God has set Christ forth as a Propitiation, they have restricted the benefit which the human race has received of God through Christ, which is most ample and most sufficient unto all men and for all men, past, present, and future, who believe in Christ, and for all their sins, original and actual; for it is a fact that God chastised Christ for them all, in order not to chastise the delinquents; and not only are these words of St. Paul not contrary to this verity, nay, but effectively they are most favorable to it. For it is so that St. Paul does not refer that clause “for the remission of sins that are past,” to the propitiation, but to that clause, “to declare His righteousness,” and he means that God placed Christ as a propitiation, chastising in Him the sins of all men. By the clause, “With the design of demonstrating His righteousness,” he means to demonstrate to men that He is most righteous and most perfect in Himself.
And he says, moreover, ” He declares it by the remission of sins that are past,” for that every believer, considering that God has chastised, in Christ, the sins of all men, recognizes that there is righteousness in God, in having pardoned the sins with which those offended Him, who lived before Christ came, to whom He showed His forbearance, in that He did not execute upon them the rigor of His justice, because He purposed executing it upon Christ; and His non-execution of it consists, as I understand, in that He has not condemned them to eternal punishment. And I understand that all they are comprehended in this pardon who recognizing God as most righteous, and who recognizing themselves to be most unrighteous, have submitted themselves to the righteousness of God, remitting themselves to it.
This knowledge of this remission I understand to be in those who believe, in the experience of their own personal remission; I mean that every one of them, who believe, by divine inspiration, that God has chastised in Christ the sins of all men, experiences the peace of conscience which is attained by believing in Christ; he feels that God has pardoned him that wherein in time past he has offended Him, and that God has justified him in the righteousness of Christ; and inwardly considering the godly, who lived before Christ, he recognizes in them what he feels within himself, and thus by the remission of sins that are past in himself, he comes to recognize the remission of sins in them who lived before Christ, and by both remissions he proceeds to recognize that God is most just and most perfect; and of pity and goodness immense; so that Paul necessarily added that word “past,” since it is so, that I cannot know that God is just in the remission of sins that do not even as yet exist, but by the remission of sins that have already existed; and here I understand this truth, that none know God to be righteous but they who are righteous. The unrighteous always hold God to be unjust, and He being just, it is well said that they do not know Him; had they held Him to be just, they would have known Him; and had they known Him, they would by that very supposition have ceased to be unrighteous, and would have been righteous. Juan de Valdés, Commentary Upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 45-46. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]
General Pardon to all men:
1) And because in certain cases you may wish to read the text of St. Paul without occupying yourself with my explanations, in order that you may do so with greater facility, I wish to inform you of some particulars which will open the way and render the knowledge of the mind of St. Paul more easy. I therefore tell you that by the word Gospel St. Paul means the proclamation of the good news, of the general pardon which is published throughout the world, affirming that God has pardoned all the sins of all men in the world, executing the severity of His justice for them all upon Christ. It was He who made known this general pardon in the world, and in His name all those who make it known proclaim it, in order that men, moved by the authority of Christ, who is the Son of God, may believe in the general pardon, and confiding in the word of God, may hold themselves as reconciled with God, and cease to seek after other means of reconciliation. Whence you should understand that God in this case has acted and continues to act towards mankind like a prince, his subjects having rebelled, and through their rebellion fled the kingdom, who gives forth a general pardon, and sends it to be proclaimed by his son, in order that they may give credit to the pardon through the authority of the son, and thus confiding in the prince’s word, they may return to the kingdom, desisting from endeavors to procure pardon of the prince in any other way or by any other means whatever. It is thus to be understood that they who believe Christ is the Son of God, and yet give no credit to the general pardon which He published, and is still publishing, not holding themselves reconciled with God, and going about seeking some other way of reconciliation, not trusting in that which Christ published, and in whose name it is still proclaimed, act just as the subjects of that prince do, who believing that he who publishes the general pardon is the prince’s son, yet do not hold themselves forgiven, and therefore do not return to his kingdom.6 And I understand that neither will the prince to whom this occurs be satisfied as regards his intention in this, that he did not send his son except with the purpose that, being known as his son, he might be believed in what he declared; nor does it appear that God is satisfied in His intention in those who, knowing Christ to be the Son of God, yet not relying upon what He proclaims on His part, do not hold themselves reconciled with God; His intent being only satisfied in those who, knowing Christ as the Son of God, and confiding in what He proclaims on the part of God, consider themselves reconciled to God, and therefore as pious, just, and holy. It is very true that the knowledge they have that Christ is the Son of God, who yet do not feel reconciled to God, cannot properly be called knowledge, being more properly opinion than knowledge. Because, if it were knowledge, it would produce in them the effect it produces in others, assuring them of their reconciliation with God, and giving peace to their consciences. Juan de Valdés, Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés, ed. Benjamin B. Wiffen, (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865), 156-157. 451-453. [Some spelling modernized, footnote value modified; and underlining mine.]
John 1:29:
1) In the embassy which St. John sent to Christ, I find this difficulty, that it is impossible that he could pretend [not]7
to know for himself what he sent to ask, since he had shown that he knew it, when in his mother’s womb, ‘ and when at the Jordan ; whether it was his aim that his disciples should know it, or that the multitudes should know it, before whom he preached it, it does seem extraordinary that St. John should call in question that which he had affirmed at the Jordan, when he said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John i. 29); and it seems yet more extraordinary that John should wish that Christ should testify concerning Himself, he being able to give it, in the manner in which he had given it; and his testimony would have been more believed, especially upon the part of his disciples, on account of the high reputation for sanctity which he had amongst all men; and besides that, that more credit is ordinarily given to what others say of us, than to what we say of ourselves. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882), 192-193. [Some spelling modernized; footnote and value original; and underlining mine.]
Sins of “the Many”:
1) By those words, “This is my blood,” &c., it appears that Christ alluded to those in Exodus xxiv. 8. “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath covenanted with you concerning all these words,” &c., as though Christ had said, the testament or covenant established by Moses, between God and the Jewish nation, was ratified by the blood of brute animals; whilst the testament or covenant that I now establish between God and men, is ratified by
My blood, which certifies them that God has pardoned them; and believing this, they enjoy His pardon.
Where it is important to observe the perversity of the human mind; by this, that the Jews, confiding in God’s word, held themselves to be reconciled to God by the blood of the animals which they saw shed for their sins; whilst there is scarcely one, among those who call themselves Christians, who, confiding in the word of God, holds himself to be pardoned as to his sins, to be reconciled to God by the blood of the Son of God, which they see shed for them; the Son of God Himself, affirming that it is shed for the sins of many, means, if all those, who, seeing the blood shed for their sins, shall hold themselves to be pardoned by it, and therefore just and holy; and thenceforth devote themselves to live righteously and holily. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882), 458-459. [Some spelling modernized; footnote original and value modified; and underlining mine.]
Christ died for all:
1) Where Christ says, ” Even as the Son of man” &c., He invites us to imitate Him, that we should in the present
life aim at the greatness at which He aimed; that we should live as He lived; that we should follow that which He followed; and that we should die as He died, giving, by His death, life to many. Christ indeed by His death gave life to all men, for that God slew all in Him, and in Him God has raised us all; but, because only they will enjoy this resurrection, who shall hold themselves to be dead in Christ and to be risen in Christ, Holy Scripture states in some passages that Christ died for many, having regard to the result; whilst it states in other passages that He died for all, having regard to the act. Here it is to be noted that these, Christ’s words, do not remove dominion or pre-eminence from amongst Christians, either in temporalities, or in Christian life, for Christ was above the disciples, by whom He was called Lord. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882), 361. [Underlining mine.]
2) Thus it was from St. Paul’s being in a state of unbelief from his disbelieving that Christ was the Son of God, that He was the Messiah promised in the Law, that He died for the sins of every one, that He was raised for the resurrection of every one, that He was glorified for the glorification of every one; it proceeded, that he persecuted and slew those who believed and preached this, thinking thereby to render God service; as others successively have done, and continue to do, from the same motive that St. Paul did, who, like St Paul, have erred and do err against God; not through inconsiderateness, for he and they are mindful of what they do; nor from malice, for they do not from self-interest hate those whom they persecute ; but through unbelief, from not believing in Christ. Whence I understand that it came to pass, that God, exercising mercy towards St. Paul, gave him to know Christ, and thus from a notorious persecutor he became a most distinguished preacher; which, as I understand, has happened to those who have erred as St. Paul erred.Juan de Valdés, Life and Writings of Juan de Valdés, ed. Benjamin B. Wiffen, (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1865), 458. [Underlining mine.]
Romans 14:15:
1) XIV. I5-I9.–Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of, for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serves Christ, is acceptable to God and is approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith we may edify one another.
St. Paul proceeds to dissuade the strong in faith from the abuse of Christian liberty; and the words” for whom Christ died,” are very expressive, meaning, Christ died for him, and dost thou, for thy satisfaction, for thy pleasure and gratification, wish to kill him?
I understand the good of the strong in faith to be then evil spoken of, when they do that which is permitted to them, in the presence of those who do not hold it to be permitted, and give them reason to hold Christian liberty, which is the blessing of Christianity, to be carnal licentiousness.
In saying, “for the Kingdom of God,” I understand him to say:–you think to show that you are raised above the kingdom of the world, and that you have entered into the Kingdom of God, by eating of everything and by drinking of everything, whilst you deceive yourselves, for the Kingdom of God consists not in this, but in righteousness; because they, who are therein, are righteous; and in peace, because they, who are therein, enjoy peace in their consciences, and live in peace with God and with man; and “in joy,” which the Holy Spirit works in their minds. So that you show yourselves to be in the Kingdom of God, not by eating and drinking of everything, but by showing that this righteousness, this peace, and this joy, are yours. Juan de Valdés, Commentary Upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 265-266.
1 Corinthians 8:11:
1) VIII. 9-1 1.–But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee, who hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat that which has been sacrificed to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.
St. Paul perseveres in reproving the use of knowledge by those -who are strong in faith, on account of the prejudice which thereby resulted to the weak and infirm in faith; he tells them to beware, lest they, by their knowledge, injure the Christian who is without knowledge. “By your liberty,” he means, your faculty acquired by knowledge. He then propounds the mode in which the liberty of some persons is a stumbling-block to others, by saying, “for if any man shall see thee.”
By “the temple of the idol,” he means, the place or table where those meats sacrificed to idols were eaten. By saying, “emboldened to eat” he means, persuaded, incited, and irritated, to eat that which he sees thee eat. And by saying, ” shall the brother perish,” he means, and hence it shall come to pass, that by the knowledge wherewith thou comes to eat that which had been sacrificed, thou shall be instrumental in the condemnation of the brother who is weak in faith.
And that expression, “for whom Christ died,” is very powerful, as though he should say, Christ died to save him, and thou cares so little about it, that thou, for the sake of an empty personal gratification and satisfaction, leads him to condemnation.
VIII. 12.—But when you thus sin against the brethren, and that you wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. As though he should say: Since it is a fact that Christ died to save him whom thou condemns, or causes to perish, it truly follows, that in sinning against the Christian, and in wounding and hurting his conscience, thou comes to sin against Christ Himself, for that thou obstructs His work.
In saying, “against the brethren,” he means, against Christians. And in speaking, ”of wounding their conscience,” he means, in causing them, who have weak and infirm consciences, to do things, whereby they hold themselves to be lost, and to be condemned. St. Paul styles those infirm, and weak in faith and in conscience, whom we call superstitious and scrupulous. So that just as superstitions and scruples are always based upon self-esteem and upon self-love, so also infirmity and weakness of faith has the same basis. By the mortification of self-esteem, and by the extirpation of self-love, man is freed from superstitions and from scruples, and remains strong and sound in faith and in conscience. Whence it may readily be gathered, that where there are superstitions and where there are scruples, there are weakness and infirmity of faith, attended also by self-esteem and by self-love. Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Church at Corinth, (London: Trüber & Co, 1883), 148-149.
Notes:
Alternate version:
1) The second is Inconsideratenesse. The third is Incredulity. In this manner from S. Paul’s standing in unbelief, from his not believing that Christ was the Son of God, that he was the promised Messiah in the Law, that he died for the sins of every one, that he was raised up for the resurrection of every one, and that he was glorified for the glorification of every one, it proceeded, that he persecuted and slew them that did believe and preach this, thinking therein to doe service to God, as from step to step others have done with the selfsame intentions which S. Paul did, who as S. Paul have erred and does against God; not by Inconsideratenesse; for he, and they go with attention to that which they doe; nor through Malice; for they doe not hate for their own interest those whom they persecute, but through Infidelity, because they doe not believe in Christ. Juan de Valdés, Divine Considerations, (London: William Clowes and Sons, [1906]) 403.
[Notes: For some brief biographical information, see my post, Juan de Valdés (1509-1541) on the Death of Christ in his ‘Children’s Catechism’.]
______________________
1Jolm xii. 32.
2Luke xxiy. 46.
31 Tim. ii. 5.
4John iii. 5.
51 Col. iii. 1-2.
6See the ” Hundred and Ten Considerations,” Consid. XIII.
7The “not” is omitted in the text.