Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 3:7
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
7. For if, &c.] Here St Paul takes up the Opponent on his own ground; speaking as a human being whose sin (e.g. a falsehood) serves to make God’s truth “abound to His glory;” i.e. be more largely manifest in a way to win Him fresh praise: in such a case is not Paul, is not A, B, or C, equally entitled with the Jewish opponent to be excused penalty? In the Gr. of the clause “why am I yet, &c.,” the word “I” is strongly emphatic; I also; i.e. “I, as well as my opponent.” “Why am I yet, &c.:” i.e. “after the recognition of the effect of my sin on the advancement of God’s glory.” “ By my lie; ” lit. in my lie; i.e. “on occasion of it, in connexion with it.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For if … – This is an objection similar to the former. It is indeed but another form of the same.
The truth of God – His truth or faithfulness in adhering to his threatenings. God threatened to punish the guilty. By their guilt he will take occasion to show his own truth; or their crime will furnish occasion for such an exhibition.
Hath more abounded – Has been more striking, or more manifest. His truth will be shown by the fulfillment of all his promises to his people, and of all his predictions. But it will also be shown by fulfilling his threatenings on the guilty. It will, therefore, more abound by their condemnation; that is, their condemnation will furnish new and striking instances or his truth. Every lost sinner will be, therefore, an eternal monument of the truth of God.
Through my lie – By means of my lie, or as one of the results of my falsehood. The word lie here means falsehood, deceitfulness, unfaithfulness. If by the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people to the covenant, occasion should be given to God to glorify himself, how could they be condemned for it?
Unto his glory – To his praise, or so as to show his character in such a way as to excite the praise and admiration of his intelligent creation.
Why yet am I … – How can that act be regarded as evil, which tends to promote the glory of God? The fault in the reasoning of the objector is this, that he takes for granted that the direct tendency of his conduct is to promote Gods glory, whereas it is just the reverse; and it is by Gods reversing that tendency, or overruling it, that he obtains his glory. The tendency of murder is not to honor the Law, or to promote the security of society, but just the reverse. Still, his execution shall avert the direct tendency of his crime, and do honor to the law and the judge, and promote the peace and security of the community by restraining others.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. JEW. For if the truth of God, &c.] But to resume my reasoning (Ro 3:5🙂 If the faithfulness of God in keeping his promise made to our fathers is, through our unfaithfulness, made far more glorious than it otherwise would have been, why should we then be blamed for that which must redound so much to the honour of God?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
By truth he means the faithfulness and veracity of God; as by lie, the perfidiousness and inconstancy of man; ut supra et alibi.
Why yet am I also judged as a sinner? q.d. If more glory accrues to the name of God by my wickedness, what reason is there that I should be punished, and proceeded against as an offender, who have occasioned this further glory to God? The apostle doth plainly personate in this place a wicked objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent among all authors; and it is found sometimes with the penmen of the Holy Scriptures: see Ecc 3:19-22; 1Co 15:32. The apostle tells the Corinthians, 1Co 4:6, that in a figure he transferred some things to himself and to Apollos for their sakes, that they might not be puffed up; he, counted such schemes and figures as these to be most profitable and efficacious to the reader.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7, 8. For if the truth of God,c.A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, “Suchreasoning amounts to thiswhich indeed we who preach salvation byfree grace are slanderously accused of teachingthat the more evilwe do, the more glory will redound to God a damnable principle.”(Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks itenough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moralsense).
On this brief section, Note(1) Mark the place here assigned to the Scriptures. In answer to thequestion, “What advantage hath the Jew?” or, “Whatprofit is there of circumcision?” (Ro3:1) those holding Romish views would undoubtedly have laid thestress upon the priesthood, as the glory of the Jewisheconomy. But in the apostle’s esteem, “the oracles of God”were the jewel of the ancient Church (Rom 3:1;Rom 3:2). (2) God’s eternalpurposes and man’s free agency, as also the doctrine of salvation bygrace and the unchanging obligations of God’s law, have ever beensubjected to the charge of inconsistency by those who will bow to notruth which their own reason cannot fathom. But amidst all the cloudsand darkness which in this present state envelop the divineadministration and many of the truths of the Bible, such broad anddeep principles as are here laid down, and which shine in their ownluster, will be found the sheet-anchor of our faith. “Let God betrue, and every man a liar” (Ro3:4); and as many advocates of salvation by grace as say, “Letus do evil that good may come,” “their damnation is just”(Ro 3:8).
Ro3:9-20. THAT THE JEWIS SHUTUP UNDER LIKECONDEMNATION WITH THEGENTILE ISPROVED BY HISOWN SCRIPTURE.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For if the truth of God,…. The “truth of God” is the same with “the righteousness of God”, Ro 3:5, and means his faithfulness; of which it is hypothetically said, it
hath more abounded; or has been more illustrated,
through my lie to his glory: nothing is more opposite to truth than a lie; a lie of itself can never be of any advantage to truth, or to the God of truth; nothing is more contrary to the nature of God, and more abominable to him; a lie is of the devil, and punishable with eternal death; wherefore it may seem strange, that the truth of God should abound through it to his glory: now let it be observed, that the apostle is not speaking of himself, nor of his lie of unbelief, in his state of unregeneracy; but in the person of a sinful man, “for every man is a liar”, Ro 3:4, as he says, “I speak as a man”, Ro 3:5; representing a wicked man, who from what was before said, might collect this as the sense of it, that the truth of God is illustrated by the lies of men: and so much may be owned as the apostle’s sense, that the truth of God is commended, illustrated, and made to abound, when it is asserted, that he is true and faithful, and every man is a liar, fallacious, and deceitful; “let God be true, and every man a liar”, Ro 3:4: moreover, the truth of God may be allowed to abound through the lies of men, in a comparative sense, the one being set against the other; and so as contraries do, illustrate each other: this may be assented to, as that sometimes a lie has been overruled by God, for the accomplishing of his purposes and promises, in which his truth and faithfulness have been displayed, as in the cases of Jacob and the Egyptian midwives; but then this does not arise from its nature and tendency, but from the overruling wisdom and providence of God, and therefore not to be excused hereby from sin; and consequently the inference from it is not just, that therefore “no man can, or ought to be, judged as a sinner”; since his sin turns to such account, as to make for the glory of God, which is intimated in the question:
why yet am I also judged as a sinner? if this be the case, I ought not to be reckoned a sinner, or to be treated as such here, or judged and condemned as one hereafter, which is a most wicked, as well as weak consequence; for though God is true and faithful to his promises, notwithstanding the sins of his people, which are as a foil, to set off the lustre of his truth the more, yet their sins are nevertheless sins, and are taken notice of by him as such, and they are corrected for them; and however God may overrule, in a providential way, the sins of others for his glory, this is no excuse for their sins, nor will it be an exemption of them from punishment. This is the sense of the passage; unless by “the truth of God” should be meant, the Gospel, the word of truth, which is of God; and which through the apostle’s “lie”, as the Jews might call his ministration of it, “abounded to” the “glory” of God; being spread far and near, and made useful for the conversion of sinners, for turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; and for the planting of churches in the Gentile world, as well as in Judea; which much conduced to the honour of God, and the interest of true religion: and then the meaning of the last clause is, “why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” why am I accounted and condemned as an heretic? as an apostate from the faith? as he was by the Jews, and who are used to call heretics sinners: so “the sinner” in Ec 7:26 is thus interpreted p, “these are the heretics”: and elsewhere it q is observed, that concerning the heretics it is said, Pr 10:7, “the name of the wicked shall rot”: and I very much suspect this to be the sense of the word in Joh 9:24, “we know that this man is a sinner”; an heretic, a man of bad principles; and in Joh 9:31; “now we know that God heareth not sinners”; men of corrupt minds; since this character stands opposed to a worshipper of the God of Israel.
p Midrash Kohelet, fol. 77. 1. q Juchasin, fol. 130. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Through my lie ( ). ] Old word from , to lie, only here in N.T. Paul returns to the imaginary objection in verse 5. The MSS. differ sharply here between (but if) and (for if). Paul “uses the first person from motives of delicacy” (Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument’s sake as in 1Co 4:6. So here he “transfers by a fiction” (Field) to himself the objection.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Lie [] . Only here in the New Testament. The expression carries us back to ver. 4, and is general for moral falsehood, unfaithfulness to the claims of conscience and of God, especially with reference to the proffer of salvation through Christ.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For if the truth of God,” (ei de he aletheia tou theou), “But if the truth of God,” the veracity, trustworthiness, of his holiness, goodness, and even judgment for wrong, Rom 1:25; Rom 2:2; 1Ti 3:15; Joh 17:17.
2) “Hath more abounded,” (eperisseusen) “has superabounded,” or was enhanced, through Paul’s salvation and ministry, Act 20:20-21; Act 20:26-27; Act 26:25; 1Co 9:22-27.
3) “Through my lie unto his glory,” (en to emo pseusmati eis ten doksan auton) “In my lie (lying) to his glory,” thru my unfaithfulness, or my sin (as the Jews, my people say), by my turning from the deeds of Judaism to the glory of God.
4) “Why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (ti eti kago hos hamartolos krinomai?) “Why am I also still judged as a mark-missing-sinner?” Why am I condemned by men, by the Jews, especially, simply because he turned from the forms and ceremonies and deeds of Judaism to Jesus Christ, Act 26:15-23; Php_3:2-14; Gal 6:14. Judgment by one’s fellowman, apart from the truth of God, is never to frustrate one from following truth. 1Co 4:3; 1Co 10:29. Paul’s conversion and change of life had gravely indicted Judaism as a form of hypocrisy, but it (his salvation and changed life by the simplicity of the gospel) had infuriated the truth rejecting Jews, Rom 9:1-2; Rom 10:1-4.
OUR JUDGE OR ADVOCATE, WHICH?
When he was a young man, Judge Warren Candler practiced law. One of his clients was charged with murder. The young lawyer went all out in his effort to clear his client of the charge. There were some extenuating circumstances, and the lawyer made the most of them in his plea before the jury. Too, there were present in the court the aged father and mother of the man charged with murder. The young lawyer wrought greatly on the sympathies and emotions of the jury by frequent references to the God-fearing parents. In due course the jury retired for deliberation. After reaching a verdict, they returned to the jury box. Their verdict read, “We find the defendant not guilty!” The young lawyer, himself a Christian, had a serious talk with his cleared client. He warned him to steer clear of evil ways, and trust God’s power to keep him straight. Years passed. The man was again arraigned. Again the charge was murder. The lawyer who had defended him at his first trail was now the judge on the bench. At the conclusion of the trial the jury rendered its verdict: “Guilty!” Ordering the condemned man to stand for sentencing Judge Candler said, “At your first trial I was your lawyer, your advocate. Today I am your judge. The verdict of the jury makes it mandatory for me to sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you are dead. May God be merciful to your soul!”
Oh, ye unsaved rejecters of Christ, accept Him now. He who may now be your Advocate will later be your Judge?
–Told by Dr. T. W. Callaway
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
7. If indeed (92) the truth of God, etc. This objection, I have no doubt, is adduced in the person of the ungodly; for it is a sort of an explanation of the former verse, and would have been connected with it, had not the Apostle, moved with indignation, broken off the sentence in the middle. The meaning of the objection is — “If by our unfaithfulness the truth of God becomes more conspicuous, and in a manner confirmed, and hence more glory redounds to him, it is by no means just, that he, who serves to display God’s glory, should be punished as a sinner.” (93)
(92) Or, “For if” — Si enim — εἰ γὰρ. The particle γὰρ here gives no reason, but is to be viewed as meaning then, or indeed, verily; see Luk 12:58; Joh 9:30; Act 16:37; Phi 2:27 [ Stuart ] renders it, still, and says, that it “points to a connection with verse. 5, and denotes a continuance of the same theme.” [ Macknight ] often renders it by further, besides, and no doubt rightly. — Ed.
(93) It is remarkable how the Apostle changes his words from the third verse to the end of this, while the same things are essentially meant. His style is throughout Hebraistic. [ Stuart ] makes these just remarks, “Αδικία is here [Rom 3:5 ] the generic appellation of sin, for which a specific name, ἀπιστία, was employed in Rom 3:3, and ψεῦσμα, in Rom 3:7. In like manner the δικαιοσύνη, in Rom 3:5, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one, πίστιν, in Rom 3:3, and by ἀλήθεια, in Rom 3:7. The idea is substantially the same, which is designated by these respectively corresponding appellations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity, are designated by πίστιν, δικαιοσύνην, and ἀλήθεια; while ἀλήθεια, and ἀπιστία ἀδικία, designate unfaithfulness, want of uprightness and false dealing. All of these terms have more or less reference to the ברית, covenant or compact (so to speak) which existed between God and his ancient people.” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) The truth of God.In the first instance His veracity as involved in His threats and promises, and then those other attributes, especially justice, that are intimately connected with this. Truth is leaning towards its moral sense. (See Note on Rom. 2:8.)
My lie.The Apostle puts his supposed case in the first person. Lie, suggested as an antithesis to the word truth, just used, has also a moral signification. It is the moral deflection that follows upon unbelief.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. For The apostle now states in the first person singular what every man in the world might argue as well as the Jew.
Truth lie Faithfulness or falseness to the divine covenant, or the divine law of right. All sin is lie.
Judged If clearly illustrating the divine righteousness transforms sin to holiness for the Jew, then it also makes every sinner to be no sinner, and makes it impossible for him to be judged.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But if the truth of God through my lie abounds to his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?’
But the questioner persists. Surely if the consequence of the Jews being untrue highlights the fact that God is true and therefore abounds to His glory, it would be unjust of God to see them as sinners, for in the final analysis what they were doing would result in something good. It is now apparent that the questioner has got away from the question of sin and its seriousness by getting tangled up in a specious rational argument. The argument is really that the end justifies the means. It revealed quite clearly that the questioner had no idea of the holiness and righteousness of the God with Whom they were dealing, a God Who must call into account people for what they ARE.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 3:7-8. For if the truth of God, &c. The particle for joins what follows in this verse, to vengeance, or wrath, in the fifth, and shews it to be a continuation of the objection begun there. But the whole eighth verse is the Apostle’s answer, the true sense of which seems to be this: Says the Jew, “If the faithfulness of God in keeping his promise is, through our wickedness, made far more glorious than otherwise it would have been, why should we Jews be blamed and condemned as sinners, for that which redounds to the honour of God?” To which the Apostle replies, Rom 3:8. “And why do you not say, and draw it into a general rule and maxim, that in all cases we ought to do wickedly, because God can one way or other turn it to his own glory? an impious sentiment, which some charge upon me; as if, when I magnify the grace of God in pardoning sin, I advanced this notion, that we ought to do evil, that good (God’s glory) may come of it: for which, and other malicious opposition to the Gospel, they shall come under the just condemnation of God.” See a further answer, chap. Rom 9:19, &c. We may just observe, that rather, Rom 3:8 is not in the Greek, and it seems to be improperly supplied. The sense is more truly and clearly filled up thus: And why do you not say? which falls in naturally with what follows, “Why do you not say, as some affirm that we say?” Such an elliptical way of speaking we have, Rev 22:9. , see not, that is to say, “See thou do it not.” Through my lie, Rom 3:7 is to be understood as not believing, Rom 3:3 and as Isa 63:8. For he said, surely they are my people, children that will not lie; that is, “violate my covenant by perfidiously forsaking me, and falling into disobedience and wickedness.” The last clause of Rom 3:8 whose condemnation is just, seems manifestly to imply, that there are certain rules which God has laid down for us, disobedience to which, in any imaginable circumstances,is universally a moral evil; even though the quantity of good arising thence to our fellow-creatures should be greater than that arising from an observance of those rules; for if this be not allowed, there can be no shadow of force in the Apostle’s conclusion. See Locke and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 3:7 f. The . . receives its illustrative confirmation; for as to the case of God, who would thus be unrighteous and nevertheless is to judge the world, every ground for judging man as a sinner must be superseded by the circumstance already discussed, viz. that His truth has been glorified by man’s falsehood (Rom 3:4 f.); and (Rom 3:8 ) as to the case of man himself, there would result the principle directly worthy of condemnation, that he should do evil in order that good might come. Comp Th. Schott, and in substance also Hofmann and Morison. The argument accordingly rests on the basis, that in the case put ( from Rom 3:6 ) the relation of God to the judgment of the world would yield two absurd consequences. (See this, as early as Chrysostom.) Another view is that of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, including Rckert, Kollner, Tholuck, Philippi and Umbreit, that the objection of Rom 3:5 is here amplified. But it is quite as arbitrary and in fact impossible (hence Philippi resorts to the violent expedient of putting in a parenthesis not only . , but also . ), with the reference of , to overleap entirely Rom 3:6 , as it is strange to make the discourse so completely abrupt and to represent the Apostle as making no reply at all to the first part of the alleged amplification of the objection (to Rom 3:7 ), and as replying to the second part (Rom 3:8 ) only by an anathema, sit! ( . . . .). Against the view of Reiche, who, following Koppe, Rosenmller, and Flatt, thinks that the Gentile is introduced as speaking in Rom 3:7 (compare Olshausen), we may decisively urge the close connection therewith of Rom 3:8 , where Paul includes himself also , but does not “take speech in hand again” (Reiche). See besides on , Rom 3:6 .
and are terms chosen in reference to Rom 3:4 , because the question proposed in Rom 3:5 was in fact suggested by that verse; but they represent, as Rom 3:5 proves, the ideas of and ; hence: the moral truth, i.e. the holy righteousness of God (see on Joh 3:21 ; Eph 5:9 ; Phi 4:8 ), and the moral falsehood, i.e. the immorality (Rev 22:15 ), wickedness of man. [756]
. . ] has abounded richly to His glory , that is, has shown itself in superabundant measure, which redounds to His glory. The stress of this protasis lies on .
The aorist denotes the result of the having abounded, which subsists at the day of judgment (realised as present by . ) as up to that point accomplished fact.
] namely, after that assumed result has occurred.
] emphasising the contradictory relation to the contents of the protasis, according to which this seems actually to have deserved something of God: even I (Baeumlein, Partik . p. 150) who have notwithstanding glorified God through my . So in substance (“ just I ” according to Hermann, a [757] Viger. p. 837) also Tholuck and Morison; compare Philippi: “ even I still .” There lies in the expression something of boldness and defiance; but it is not equivalent to , or , to the meaning of which Th. Schott and Hofmann ultimately bring it (“ even personally still ”). We may add that this first person, individualising just like the preceding one ( . .), of course represents the sinner in general (with an intended application to the Jews , see on Rom 3:5 f), and not the Apostle himself, as Schrader and Fritzsche think. Against this latter theory it is decisive that after Rom 3:6 must indicate, not the judgment of enemies, but necessarily the divine act of judging.
.] as a sinner , not “ as a Gentile ” (Reiche, Mehring), and others.
Rom 3:8 . ] Before we must again supply : and why should we not , etc. Respecting , quidni , see Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 162. Accordingly, as continues the question, only a comma is to be placed after .
As regards the construction, Paul has dropped the plan of the sentence begun with ( and why should we not do evil , etc.), being led away from it by the inserted remark, and has joined in direct address ( let us do ) to the , so that is recitative . But on account of this very blending there is no necessity either to make a parenthesis or to supply anything. For similar attractions (compare especially Xen. Anab. vi. 4, 18) in which the discourse is interrupted by an intervening clause, and then continued in a regimen dependent on the latter and no longer suitable to the beginning, see Hermann a [758] Viger. p. 745, 894; Bernhardy, p. 464; Dissen, a [759] Dem. de cor. p. 346, 418; Krger, gramm. Unters. p. 457 ff. Many erroneous attempts have been made by commentators (see the various explanations in Morison) to bring out an unbroken construction, as e.g. the supplying of or some such word after (Erasmus, Calvin, Wolf, Koppe, Benecke, and others, also van Hengel). Even the expedient of Matthias is untenable. [760] The same may be said of that of Hofmann, who supplies an after , and renders: “ Why does it not happen to me according to that, as ( ) we are slandered ,” etc. But if it is quite gratuitous to supply , it is still more so to make this equivalent to . Besides the negation, which, according to our construction, harmonises with the deliberative sense, would necessarily be not but , since it would negative the reality of the understood (1Co 6:7 ; Luk 19:23 ; Luk 20:5 al [761] ). The correct view is held also by Winer and Buttmann (p. 235, 211), Philippi and Morison.
.] as we ( Christians ) are calumniated , namely, as if we did evil in order that, etc. Then the following . contains the accusation, current possibly in Rome also, that the Christians were in the habit of repeating this maxim even as a doctrinal proposition. As to the distinction between (to assert) and , compare on 1Co 10:15 . What may have occasioned such slanders against the Christians? Certainly their non-observance of the Mosaic law, to which they ventured to deem themselves not bound, in order to gain eternal life by the grace of God through faith in the redemptive work of Christ, which was an offence to the Jews. The plural is not to be referred to Paul alone , which would be arbitrary on account of the preceding singular; the Christians are conceived as Pauline (comp Act 21:21 ); and on the part of Jews and Judaizers ( , certain people , as in 1Co 15:12 ) are slanderously and falsely (for see Rom 5:20 , Rom 6:1 ; Rom 6:15 ff.) accused of doing evil that good might come (might ensue as result). Under this general category , namely, the calumniators reduced the bearing of the Christians, so far as the latter, without regulating their conduct by the Mosaic law, were nevertheless assured, and professed, that they should through faith in Christ obtain the divine blessings of salvation. That general accusation was an injurious abstract inference thence deduced.
] i.e. of those, who follow this principle destructive of the whole moral order of God. They form the nearest logical subject. With just indignation the Apostle himself, having a deep sense of morality, makes us feel in conclusion by . . [763] how deserving of punishment is the consequence, which, if God be regarded as an unrighteous judge of the world, must ensue for moral conduct from the premiss that God is glorified by the sin of men. The reference of to the slanderers (Theodoret, Grotius, Tholuck, Mehring, Hofmann) is unsuitable, because it separates the weighty closing sentence from the argumentation itself, and makes it merely an accessory thought.
] The definite judicial sentence, decree of punishment at the last judgment.
] accordant with justice , rightful. Compare Heb 2:2 . Frequently used in classic writers.
[756] Those who take ver. 7 f. as spoken in the person of the Gentile (see especially Reiche) explain the of the true religion (how entirely opposed to ver. 4!), of idolatry, and as Gentile.
[757] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[758] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[759] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[760] He brings forward the modal definition: as the main element; then the modality of the opposed to this is . . . .: “Why then am even I still judged like a sinner , and not rather according to that, which we are slanderously reported of, and which some affirm that we say: namely, according to this , Let us do evil, that good may come?” Instead of saying: , Paul, in the indignation of excited feeling, gives to the thought which he had begun the different turn which it presents in the text. With this artificial interpretation, we must remember that Paul would have written instead of , since it is an objective relation that is here in question (compare Col 2:8 al. ); that instead of we should have expected the repetition of the ; and that the notion of , as it prevails in the connection (compare also the following ), does not suit the assumed thought, . Comp. also Morison, p. 79.
[761] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[763] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Ver. 7. For if the truth of God ] Here the former objection is repeated, explicated, and more fully answered, that every mouth might be stopped. Ferunt ranas lampade supra lacum, in quo tumultuantur, appensa, illius fulgore repercussas conticescere. (Lomelius.) So gainsayers are silenced, when the truth is thoroughly cleared.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7. ] This follows (connected by ) upon Rom 3:6 , and shews that the supposition if carried out, would overthrow all God’s judgment, and ( Rom 3:8 ) the whole moral life of man. How shall God judge the world ? FOR, if the truth (faithfulness) of God abounded (was manifested, more clearly established) by means of my falsehood (unfaithfulness), to His glory (so that the result has been the setting forth of His glory), why any longer ( , this being so, assuming the premises) am I also (i.e. as well as others, am I to be involved in a judgment from which I ought to be exempt) judged (to be judged, the pres. expressing the rule or habit of God’s proceeding) as a sinner? And (why should we) not (in this case rather say) as we (I Paul, or we Christians) are slanderously reported, and as some give out that we (do) say ( recitantis), “ Let us do evil that good may come?” whose condemnation (not that of our slanderers (Grot., Tholuck), but that of those who so say and act) is according to justice (not only by the preceding argument, but by the common detestation of all men, for such a maxim as doing evil that good may come).
The way adopted generally (Calv., Beza, Grot., Bengel, Wolf, Rckert, Kllner, Tholuck) is to connect Rom 3:7 by with Rom 3:5 , and to regard . as a series of parentheses; but I very much prefer that given above, which, in the main, is De Wette’s. Fritzsche and Schrader strangely enough regard as bona fide the individual Paul, and as the judgment passed by his adversaries (“nam si Dei veracitas meo peccatoris mendacio abunde in Dei laudem cessit, cur adhuc ego quoque, Paulus, tanquam facinorosus ab hominibus reus agor,” &c.): Reiche, Olsh., &c. put Rom 3:7 into the mouth of a Gentile : Bengel, into that of a Jew . Doubtless the main reference of this part of the argument is to Jews: but the reasoning from the introduction of the words (see above) is general , applying both to Jew and Gentile, and shewing the untenableness of any such view as that of the Jewish objection of Rom 3:5 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 3:7 f. These verses are extremely difficult, and are interpreted variously according to the force assigned to the of Rom 3:7 . Who or what supplies the contrast to this emphatic “I also”? Some commentators, Gifford, for instance, find it in God, and God’s interest in the judgment. If my lie sets in relief the truth of God, and so magnifies His glory, is not that enough? Why, after God has had this satisfaction from my sin, “why further am I also on my side brought to judgment as a sinner?” It is a serious, if not a final objection to this, that it merely repeats the argument of Rom 3:5 , which the Apostle has already refuted. Its very generality, too for any man, as Gifford himself says, may thus protest against being judged, lessens its relevance: for Paul is discussing not human evasions of God’s judgment, but Jewish objections to his previous arguments. Lipsius finds the contrast to in the Gentile world. A Jew is the speaker, or at all events the Apostle speaks in the character of one: “if my unbelief does magnify His faithfulness, is not that all that is required? Why am I, too, like the rest of the world, whose relation to God is so different, and whose judgment is so necessary, still brought into judgment?” This would be legitimate enough, probably, if it were not for what follows. But the slander of Rom 3:8 , which forms part of the same question as . . ., and to which reference is made again in chap. Rom 6:1 ; Rom 6:15 , had not the Jews, but the Apostle in his Christian character, for its object; hence it seems preferable to take the as referring strictly to himself. That Paul would come into judgment, in spite of the fact that his faithlessness in becoming a Christian had only set off the faithfulness of God to Israel, no unbelieving Jew questioned: and Paul turns this conviction of theirs (with which, of course, he agrees, so far as it asserts that he will be judged) against themselves. If he, for his part, cannot evade judgment, on the ground that his sin (as they think it) has been a foil to God’s righteousness, no more can they on their part: they and he are in one position, and must be judged together: to condemn him is to expose themselves to condemnation; that is his point. The argument of Rom 3:7 is both an argumentum ad hominem and an argumentum ad rem: Paul borrows from his opponents the premises that he himself is to be judged as a sinner, and that his lie has set off God’s truth: there is enough in these premises to serve his purpose, which is to show that these two propositions which do not exclude each other in his case do not do so in their case either. But, of course, he would interpret the second in a very different way from them. The question is continued in Rom 3:8 , though the construction is changed by the introduction of the parentheses with and the attachment to of the clause which would naturally have gone with ; If judgment could be evaded by sinning to the glory of God, so Paul argues, he and other Christians like him might naturally act on the principle which slander imputed to them that of doing evil that good might come. No doubt the slander was of Jewish origin. The doctrine that righteousness is a gift of God, not to be won by works of law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, can always be misrepresented as immoral: “sin the more, it will only the more magnify grace” Paul does not stoop to discuss it. The judgment that comes on those who by such perversions of reason and conscience seek to evade all judgment is just. This is all he has to say.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
hath more abounded = abounded, as Rom 5:15; Rom 15:13. Greek. perisseuo. Literally overflow. See 2Co 8:2, &c.
through. Greek. en. App-104.
lie. Greek. pseusma. Only here.
glory. Greek. doxa. See Rom 1:23 and Joh 1:14.
sinner. Greek. hamartolos. Compare App-128.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
7.] This follows (connected by ) upon Rom 3:6, and shews that the supposition if carried out, would overthrow all Gods judgment, and (Rom 3:8) the whole moral life of man. How shall God judge the world? FOR, if the truth (faithfulness) of God abounded (was manifested, more clearly established) by means of my falsehood (unfaithfulness), to His glory (so that the result has been the setting forth of His glory), why any longer (, this being so,-assuming the premises) am I also (i.e. as well as others,-am I to be involved in a judgment from which I ought to be exempt) judged (to be judged,-the pres. expressing the rule or habit of Gods proceeding) as a sinner? And (why should we) not (in this case rather say) as we (I Paul, or we Christians) are slanderously reported, and as some give out that we (do) say ( recitantis), Let us do evil that good may come? whose condemnation (not that of our slanderers (Grot., Tholuck), but that of those who so say and act) is according to justice (not only by the preceding argument, but by the common detestation of all men, for such a maxim as doing evil that good may come).
The way adopted generally (Calv., Beza, Grot., Bengel, Wolf, Rckert, Kllner, Tholuck) is to connect Rom 3:7 by with Rom 3:5, and to regard . as a series of parentheses; but I very much prefer that given above, which, in the main, is De Wettes. Fritzsche and Schrader strangely enough regard as bona fide the individual Paul, and as the judgment passed by his adversaries (nam si Dei veracitas meo peccatoris mendacio abunde in Dei laudem cessit, cur adhuc ego quoque, Paulus, tanquam facinorosus ab hominibus reus agor, &c.): Reiche, Olsh., &c. put Rom 3:7 into the mouth of a Gentile: Bengel, into that of a Jew. Doubtless the main reference of this part of the argument is to Jews: but the reasoning from the introduction of the words (see above) is general, applying both to Jew and Gentile, and shewing the untenableness of any such view as that of the Jewish objection of Rom 3:5.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 3:7. , for if) An tiologia[34] [a sentiment, with the grounds on which it rests subjoined] set forth in the form of a dialogue, for the purpose of strengthening the objection which was introduced at the beginning of Rom 3:5. , through my lie) The things which God says are true, and he who does not believe these, makes God a liar, being in reality himself the liar.-) that is, why do I even still excuse myself, as if I had some reason to fear? Comp. , ch. Rom 9:19; Gal 5:11.-) I also, to whom the truth of God has been revealed; not merely the heathen.-) corresponds to , Rom 3:4; Rom 3:6, LXX.; Job 2:9 (Job 40:4) ;
[34] See Appendix.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 3:7
Rom 3:7
But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?-If the treason of Judas had been the occasion of Jesus Christ being manifested to the world and glorified, why is Judas regarded as a sinner? The reason is that Judas did not betray Jesus that Gods love might be manifested and Gods glory proclaimed, but to satisfy his own covetous soul. Mans lost and ruined condition is the occasion of calling out Gods love. Gods love would never have been manifested had not man sinned. A childs sickness or misfortune calls out the deep and strong love of the mother for it. So mans sin was the occasion of manifesting Gods love to man. The showing of this love brought glory to God. God was in this way glorified through mans sin. To live in sin after Jesus died to deliver man from sin rendered him the more guilty and worthy of the deeper condemnation.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
sinner
(See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
if the truth: Gen 37:8, Gen 37:9, Gen 37:20, Gen 44:1-14, Gen 50:18-20, Exo 3:19, Exo 14:5, Exo 14:30, 1Ki 13:17, 1Ki 13:18, 1Ki 13:26-32, 2Ki 8:10-15, Mat 26:34, Mat 26:69-75
why yet: Rom 9:19, Rom 9:20, Isa 10:6, Isa 10:7, Act 2:23, Act 13:27-29
Reciprocal: Gen 27:24 – I am Gen 27:35 – General Jos 2:5 – the men went out Jer 11:18 – the Lord Hos 9:8 – in the Rom 3:5 – But if 1Co 15:15 – General Heb 3:10 – they have
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3:7
Rom 3:7. Paul makes the same point with lie and truth that he makes with unrighteousness and righteousness in the preceding verse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 3:7. But. This reading is more difficult, but preferable. If for were correct, it would introduce an illustrative confirmation; but presents an objection or contrast. Yet even with this reading the thought is explanatory. God must judge the world; but if, etc. The argument accordingly rests on the basis, that in the case put ( then from Rom 3:6) the relation of God to the judgment of the world would yield two absurd consequences.(Meyer.) For presents this as Pauls argument; but, as an objection met at once.
The truth of God. Comp. Rom 3:4. His moral truth, in this connection, almost equivalent to His righteouness.
Through my lie. The emphasis rests on this phrase (notice the emended order), which here refers to moral falsehood; comp. our unrighteousness (Rom 3:5). Whether the objection comes from a Jew or Gentile has been much disputed. But as the argument is based on the fact that God will judge the world, no special reference is necessary.
Abounded unto his glory Another form of the thought of Rom 3:5; but here something must be supplied: If this abounding unto His glory is a sufficient justification. The state of things at the day of judgment is in the hypothesis.
Why (if this is a sufficient justification, does He judge the world, and thus) am I also (I who thus glorify him) as a sinner still judged, i.e., at the day of judgment. The absurd consequence as respects God, is that He has no right to judge man as a sinner, because mans falsehood glorifies His truth. The order we adopt places the emphasis on judged. I, here is to be taken generally as my in the previous clause. Although the application to the Jew is designed. Still, i.e., after the supposed result has occurred, furnishing the supposed excuse.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
We must by no means understand these words as spoken by the apostle himself in his own name, as if he had told lies for upholding of the truth; and that the truth of God had abounded to the glory of God through his lies; but he speaks in the person of a profane objector. Thus some man (as if the aposlte had said) may possibly plead for his sin: “The truth of God hath gained by my lie, the faithfulness of God is made more manifest by the unfaithfulness of men; therefore, why should I be judged and condemned as a sinner, when the glory of God will shine more bright upon the occasion of my sin?
The free grace of God discovered in the gospel, will be manifested, say some and magnified in the pardoning of our sin; let us therefore sin our fill, that the immeasurableness of divine goodness may appear, and the abundance of pardoning mercy may abound.” The apostle rejects this doctrine and practice, of doing evil that good may come, with the greatest abhorrency and utmost detestation, affirming, that their damnation is just, who either fasten this doctrine upon the apostles, or affirm it themselves.
Learn hence, That no person must venture to do the least of evils; no, not for the sake of the greatest good. True, Almighty God can bring good out of evil, by the same word of his power, by which he brought light out of darkness, and something out of nothing; but to do anything really evil for obtaining the greatest good, is dangerous and damnable. Sin, or that which is sinful, ought not to be chosen, whatever we chuse.
Learn, 2. That nothing is more just and righteous than their damnation, who will adventure to do evil, that good may come: A good intention will not excuse, never justify a bad action in the sight of God: He will condemn evil-doers, though they do evil, that good may come.
Learn, 3. That the apostle pronounces their damnation just, who laid these slanders to the apostles charge, as if their doctrine did allow of this damnable practice, to do evil that good might come: Their damnation is just, who thus slanderously report and affirm, that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come.
Whence note, That it is a just thing with God to damn those men that raise or spread abroad reparts of his ministers doctrine, as giving liberty to licentious practices: Verily, the slander of a minister’s regular doctrine is more than ordinary slander. The original word here rendered slander, signifies blasphemy; the word which God makes use of to set forth his own reproaches by. Behold God’s resentment of his minister’s wrongs. The slander and contempt cast upon our office and doctrine, is esteemed blasphemy in God’s account: As we be slanderously reported or blasphemed; and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come: whose damnation is just.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Rom 3:7-8. For Or but (the objector may reply) if the truth of God hath more abounded Has been more abundantly shown; through my lie If my lie, that is, practice contrary to truth, conduces to the glory of God, by making his truth shine with superior advantage; why am I yet judged as a sinner And arraigned for that which is attended with such happy consequences? Can my conduct be said to be sinful at all? Ought I not to do what would otherwise be evil, that so much good may come? To this the apostle does not deign to give a direct answer, adding, whose damnation, or condemnation, is just. The condemnation of all, who either speak or act in this manner. Here the apostle teaches expressly the unlawfulness of doing evil, any evil, on the pretence of promoting what is good. Such a pretence, if allowed, would justify the greatest crimes. This, however, the apostle here signifies they were slanderously reported as teaching; probably on a misinterpretation of their doctrine, that the greatness of the sins of which the Gentiles were guilty, rendered Gods goodness in sending Christ to die for them the more illustrious.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 7, 8. For if the truth of God hath abounded through my lie unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not, Let us do evilas we are accused of doing, and as some falsely pretend that we teachthat good may come? whose condemnation is just.
Many commentators (Calvin, Grotius, Philippi) have fallen into a strange error in regard to Rom 3:7. They imagine that this verse reproduces once more the objection of Rom 3:5. The for serves, they say, to justify the question: Is not God unrighteous? In reality the apostle is made to add: after the advantage which He has derived from my lie for His glory, how does He still judge me? But for what reason should the for relate to Rom 3:5 rather than Rom 3:6, which immediately precedes? This would be to forget the answer given in Rom 3:6, and so to confess its weakness! In this case we should require rather to adopt the reading , but if, of the Sinat. and Vatic., and to make Rom 3:7 an objection to the answer given in Rom 3:6. But this reading is inadmissible, because this new objection raised would remain without answer in the sequel. This same reason tells also against the explanation which makes Rom 3:7 a simple reaffirmation of the objection of Rom 3:5. How could an objection, reproduced so forcibly, possibly be left without any other answer than the relegating of those who dare to raise it to the judgment of God (Rom 3:8)? For a mind like Paul’s this would be a strange mode of arguing! Rom 3:7 is simply, as the for indicates, the confirmation of the answer given in Rom 3:6 : How would God judge the world? In reality (for) every sinner might come before the judge and say to Him, on his own behalf: And I too by my lie, I have contributed to Thy glory. And he must be acquitted.
By the phrase truth of God Paul returns to the beginning of the discussion (Rom 3:3-4). What is in question is the moral uprightness of God; in like manner the term lie brings us back to the every man a liar (Rom 3:4). This lie consists in voluntary ignorance of goodness, to escape the obligation of doing it. The verb , has abounded, strictly: flowed over, denotes the surplus of glory which God’s moral perfection extracts from human wickedness in each case. , yet, signifies: even after so profitable a result has accrued from my sins. , I also: I who, as well as all the rest, have contributed to Thy glory. It is as if one saw the whole multitude of sinners appearing before the judgment-seat one after the other, and throwing this identical answer in God’s face; the judgment is therefore brought to nothing. Thus is confirmed the answer of Rom 3:6 to the objection of Rom 3:5.
This so suitable meaning appears to us preferable to a more special sense which might present itself to the mind, especially if one were tempted to apply the term the world (Rom 3:6) to the Gentile, in opposition to the Jewish world (Rom 3:5). The sense would be: For the judgment comes to nought for me Gentile, as well as for thee Jew, since I can plead the same excuse as thou, my Gentilehood contributing to glorify God’s truth as much as thy unbelief to exalt His righteousness. For the application to the Gentiles of the two expressions: God’s truth, and lie, see Rom 1:25. But to make this meaning probable, Paul would require to have brought out in chap. 1 the idea that idolatry had contributed to God’s glory; and as to the restricted meaning of , the world, see at p. 137.
The apostle pushes his refutation to the utmost (Rom 3:8): Why even not go further? Why, after annihilating the judgment, not say further, to be thoroughly consequent: And even let us furnish God, by sinning more freely, with richer opportunities of doing good! Will not every sin be a material which He will transform into the pure gold of His glory? The words , and not, should properly be followed by the verb: let us do evil? , as we have translated it. But in Greek the sentence is interrupted by the insertion of a parenthesis, intended to remind the reader that such is precisely the odious principle which Paul and his brethren are accused by their calumniators of practising and teaching. And when, after this parenthesis, he returns in Rom 3:8 to his principal idea: , let us do, instead of connecting it with the conjunction, and (that) not, he makes it depend directly on the last verb of the parenthesis, teach: As we are accused of teaching, let us do evil. The , that, is the recitative so common in Greek (transition from the indirect to the direct form of discourse). The construction which we have just indicated is a form of anacolouthon, of which numerous examples are found in classic authors.
The verb we are accused has for its object the understood clause: of doing so, of practising this principle. If we understood: Accused of teaching, the following words would be a mere superfluous repetition. The term seems deliberately chosen to suggest the idea that the principle calumniously imputed to him is itself blasphemous in its nature. The second part of the parenthesis adds the idea of professing () to that of practising. The words form a climax, for it is graver to lay down a blasphemous maxim as a principle than to put it into practice in a few isolated cases. Hofmann has proposed another construction; he understands after , and makes the following dependent on it: And it is not the case with me, as we are accused of practising and teaching, that it only remains to do evil that…But it is harsh to make the depend on ; and Meyer rightly observes that Paul would have required to say , and not ; comp. the interrogations, 1Co 6:7; Luk 19:23, etc.
The sort of malediction which closes the verse is applied by most commentators to those who really practise and teach the maxim which is falsely applied to Paul. But the apostle would not have confined himself in that case to the use of the simple relative pronoun , whose; he would necessarily have required to indicate, and even characterize, the antecedent of the pronoun, which cannot refer to any substantive expressed or understood in the preceding proposition. It must have for its antecedent the preceding , some, and we must apply this severe denunciation to the calumniators of the apostle’s life and teaching. Those who raise such accusations wrongly and maliciously against his person and doctrine themselves deserve the condemnation which they call down on the head of Paul. But it should be well observed that the apostle does not express himself thus till he has satisfied all the demands of logical discussion.
Observations on the passage, Rom 3:1-8.
Notwithstanding its temporary application to the Jewish people, this passage, which will find its complete explanation in chap. 11, has a real permanent value. It has always been sought to justify the greatest crimes in history by representing the advantages in which they have resulted to the cause of humanity. There is not a Robespierre who has not been transformed into a saint in the name of utilitarianism. But to make such a canonization valid, one would require to begin by proving that the useful result sprang from the evil committed as its principle. Such is the teaching of Pantheism. Living Theism, on the contrary, teaches that this transformation of the bad deed into a means of progress, is the miracle of God’s wisdom and power continually laying hold of human sin to derive from it a result contrary to its nature. On the first view, all human responsibility is at an end, and the judgment becomes a nullity. On the second, man remains fully responsible to God for the bad deed as an expression of the evil will of its author, and despite the good which God is pleased to extract from it. Such is scriptural optimism, which alone reconciles man’s moral responsibility with the doctrine of providential progress. The apostle has laid the foundations of this true theodice in the remarkable piece which we have just been studying.
It is curious to see how Holsten seeks to explain this passage, the meaning of which has, as we think, been made so clear, by a polemical intention against the alleged Jewish-Christianity of the Christians of Rome. We do not waste time in giving a refutation which seems to us to arise of itself from the preceding.
The apostle has drawn in two great pictures the reign of God’s wrath(1) over the Gentile world (chap. 1); (2) over the Jewish people (chap. 2); and by way of appendix he has added a passage to this second picture, intended to sweep away the objections which, from the ordinary Jewish point of view, seemed opposed to the statement that this elect people could possibly become, notwithstanding their unbelief, the object of divine animadversion. Now, to the judgment which follows from the preceding context with respect to the whole of mankind, he affixes the seal of Scripture sanction, without which he regards no proof as finally valid.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
7. But if the truth of God abounded through my life unto his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? He here answers the argument of the fatalist: Since the immutable God is neither changed nor in the least deflected from the perfect integrity of His administration, neither His veracity suffering the slightest impeachment by my perversity and falsehood; as I am utterly incompetent to contravene the divine purpose or tarnish the infallible glory of the Almighty, then why am I condemned as a sinner? It is the hackneyed pleading of irresponsibility which we daily meet, offered as an apology on the part of the ungodly.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
3:7 {3} For if the {i} truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
(3) A third objection, which adds somewhat to the former: if sins turn out to the glory of God, they are not only not to be punished, but we ought rather to give ourselves to them: and this blasphemy Paul, as he fights to curse and detest it, pronounces it to be a just punishment against such blasphemers.
(i) The truth and unchangingness.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The fourth question is very similar to the third. Perhaps Paul raised it as a response to his immediately preceding answer (Rom 3:6). It clarifies the folly of the idea expressed in the third question. What an objector might really be saying in question three comes out in question four. If my lying, for example, glorifies God by showing Him to be the only perfectly truthful person, why does God punish me for lying? Paul had been stressing reality and priorities in chapter 2. This objection gets down to that level. If circumcision is of secondary importance compared to perfect obedience to God, is not sinning of secondary importance to glorifying God?
Paul’s reply was that in spite of accusations to the contrary he had not taught that the end justifies the means. Circumcision was secondary, but it was not sinful. God will not overlook sin, though He will overlook lack of circumcision (Rom 2:26-29). If anyone thinks that God should overlook his sinning because in a sense it glorifies God, that person deserves condemnation (Rom 3:8). Paul implied that this objection is so absurd that it is not worth considering.
To summarize, in Rom 3:1-8 Paul raised and answered four objections that a Jew might have offered to squirm out from under the guilty verdict Paul had pronounced on him in chapter 2. The essential objections are as follows.
1. The Jews are a privileged people (Rom 3:1-2).
2. God will remain faithful to the Jews despite their unfaithfulness to Him (Rom 3:3-4).
3. God will be merciful since the Jews’ failings have magnified God’s righteousness.
4. God will overlook the Jews’ sins since they contribute to the glory of God.
Self-righteous people still raise these objections. Some people assume that because God has blessed them He will not condemn them (objection one). Some believe the character of God prohibits Him from condemning them (objection two). Some think that even though they have sinned God will be merciful and not condemn them (objection three). Some feel that since everything we do glorifies God in some way God would be unjust to condemn them (objection four).
"Thousands of so-called ’church-members’ not only have never been brought under real conviction of sin and guilt and personal danger, but rise in anger like the Jews of Paul’s day when one preaches their danger directly to them!" [Note: Newell, p. 78.]