Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 3:3

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

3. For what ] Here a formula of argument, introducing an objection.

if some ] A euphemism, most natural in the words of a supposed Jewish Opponent. As a fact, it was the “some” who believed, the many who did not; as of old at Kadesh-barnea. (Numbers 13, 14.)

the faith of God ] i.e. His good faith, faithfulness to His promise. The same Gr. word appears with the meaning “faithfulness” in e.g. Gal 5:22 (where E. V. has “faith”), Tit 2:10, and perhaps 1Ti 4:12. See Appendix C.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

3 8. The Divine Judge will not connive at sin

3 8. For what if some, &c.] Rom 3:3-8 form a passage of much difficulty in detail, though clear as a whole. The difficulty results partly from a doubt as to where the Opponent speaks, and partly from the Apostle’s own thought modifying the words put into the Opponent’s mouth. It will be best to waive a minute discussion of interpretations, and at once to give our own in the shape of a paraphrase.

Rom 3:3. ( The Jewish Opponent). “You say the Jew has advantage. He has indeed: God’s veracity (truth, faithfulness) is pledged to give him eternal life. For can we think that the unfaithfulness of some Jews to God annuls His faithfulness to the race? Will He fail in His purpose?”

Rom 3:4. ( The Apostle.) “God forbid! Rather should we admit any charge of untruth against man, than the least against God. So David saw, and wrote, in his confession of his own sin; his main thought was (Psa 51:4) that he would even own the very worst against himself, that God might be seen to punish him justly.”

Rom 3:5. ( The Opponent.) “But hear me further. The sinful unbelief of some Jews, as you own, cannot change His purpose. May I not say more? does it not, by bringing His faithfulness into contrast, glorify Him? and if so, will He punish it? What say you of His justice or injustice in visiting even wicked Jews with wrath?”

Rom 3:6-8. ( The Apostle.) “I say, God forbid the thought that He will not punish them. For, on such a principle, how shall God be the universal Judge at all? I too, be I Jew or Gentile, might say as well as you, ‘I choose to tell a lie; somehow or other this will illustrate God’s truth, e.g. by contrast; therefore I ought to be acquitted; I ought to be allowed to act on the principle of evil for the sake of good;’ a principle with which we Christians are charged, but which we utterly condemn.”

We now remark on details.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For what if some did not believe? – This is to be regarded as another objection of a Jew. What then? or what follows? if it be admitted that some of the nation did not believe, does it not follow that the faithfulness of God in his promises will fail? The points of the objection are these:

1. The apostle had maintained that the nation was sinful Rom. 2; that is, that they had not obeyed or believed God.
2. This, the objector for the time admits or supposes in relation to some of them. But,

(3)He asks whether this does not involve a consequence which is not admissible, that God is unfaithful.

Did not the fact that God chose them as his people, and entered into covenant with them, imply that the Jews should be kept from perdition? It was evidently their belief that all Jews would be saved, and this belief they grounded on his covenant with their fathers. The doctrine of the apostle Rom. 2 would seem to imply that in certain respects they were on a level with the Gentile nations; that if they sinned, they would be treated just like the pagan; and hence, they asked of what value was the promise of God? Had it not become vain and nugatory?

Make the faith – The word faith here evidently means the faithfulness or fidelity of God to his promises. Compare Mat 13:23; 2Ti 3:10; Hos 2:20.

Of none effect – Destroy it; or prevent him from fulfilling his promises. The meaning of the objection is, that the fact supposed, that the Jews would become unfaithful and be lost, would imply that God had failed to keep his promises to the nation; or that he had made promises which the result showed he was not able to perform.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Rom 3:3-4

For what if some did not believe?

Mans unbelief and Gods faithfulness

I. Mans unbelief; its various forms; impenitence; scepticism.

II. Gods faithfulness; His Word remains true; cannot fail of effect; must be glorified. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

God justified though man believes not

We have here–

I. A sorrowful reminder. There always have been some who have not believed.

1. This is stated very mildly. The apostle might have said many instead of some. Remember that all but two who came out of Egypt fell in the wilderness through unbelief; but the apostle does not wish to unduly press his argument, or to aggravate his hearers. Even in his own day he might have said, The bulk of the Jewish nation has rejected Christ. Wherever I go, they seek my life, because I preach a dying Saviours love. Yet this is a very appalling thing, even when stated thus mildly. If all here except one were believers, and it was announced that that one would be pointed out to the congregation, we should all feel in a very solemn condition. But there are many more than one here who have not believed. If the unconverted were not so numerous they would be looked upon with horror and pity. As they are so numerous, there is all the greater need for our compassion.

2. The terms of Pauls question suggest a mitigation of the sorrow. What if some did not believe? Then it is implied that some did believe. Glory be to God, there is a numerous some.

3. Yet it is true that, at times, the some who did not believe meant the majority. Read the story of Israel through and you will be saddened to find how again and again they did not believe, and it may be that, even among hearers of the gospel, the unbelievers preponderate.

4. This unbelief has usually been the case between the great ones of the earth. In our Saviours day they said, Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? The gospel has usually had a free course among the poor, but not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.

5. Some who have not believed have belonged to the religious and to the teaching class. The Scribes and Pharisees rejected Christ, although they were the religious leaders of the people. And now we may be preachers, and yet not preach the gospel of Christ; we may be members of the Church, and yet not savingly know it.

6. The same may be said if we take the whole range of the nations favoured with the gospel.

7. What, then, if some do not believe? Then–

(1) They are lost. He that believeth not is condemned already.

(2) There still remains, to those who hear the gospel, the opportunity to believe; and, believing, they shall find life through the sacred name.

(3) Let us, who do believe, make them the constant subject of our prayers; and bear our witness to the saving power of the gospel.

II. A horrible inference, viz., that their unbelief had made the faith, or the faithfulness of God, without effect.

1. Some will say, If So-and-so and So-and-so do not believe the gospel, then religion is a failure. We have read of a great many things being failures. A little while ago it was a question whether marriage was not a failure. I suppose that, by and by, eating and breathing will be a failure. The gospel is said to be a failure, because certain gentlemen of professed culture and knowledge do not believe it. Well, there have been other things that have not been believed in by very important individuals, and yet they have turned out to be true. Before the trains ran, the old coachmen and farmers would not believe that an engine could be made to go on the rails, and to drag carriages behind it. According to the wise men of the time, everything was to go to the bad, and the engines would blow up the first time they started with a train. But they did not blow up, and everybody now smiles at what those learned gentlemen ventured then to say. Look at those who now tell us that the gospel is a failure. They are in the line of those whose principal object has been to refute all that went before them. If any of you shall live fifty years, you will see that the philosophy of today will be a football of contempt for the philosophy of that period. I have to say, with Paul, What if some did not believe? It is no new thing; for there have always been some who rejected the revelation of God. What then? You and I had better go on believing, and testing for ourselves, and proving the faithfulness of God. The gospel is no failure, as many of us know.

2. Has God failed to keep His promise to Israel because some Israelites did not believe? Paul Nays, No. He did bring Israel into the promised land, though all but two that came out of Egypt died through unbelief in the wilderness. A nation came up from their ashes, and God kept His covenant with His ancient people; and today He is keeping it. The chosen seed of Israels race is a remnant, weak and small; but the day is coming when then they shall be gathered in; then shall also be the fulness of the Gentiles when Israel has come to own her Lord.

3. Because some do not believe, will Gods promise therefore fail to be kept to those who do believe? I invite you to come and try. When two of Johns disciples inquired of Jesus where He dwelt, He said to them, Come and see. If any here will try Christ, as I tried Him, they will not tolerate a doubt. One said that she believed the Bible because she was acquainted with the Author of it, and you will believe the gospel if you are acquainted with the Saviour who brings it.

4. Will God be unfaithful to His Son if some do not believe? I thank God that I have no fear about that. He shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied. Suppose that you wickedly say, We will not have Christ to reign over us. If you think that you will rob Him of honour by your rejection, you make a great mistake. If you will not have Him, others will. This word shall yet become true, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, etc.

5. If some do not believe, will God change the gospel to suit them? Ought we to change our preaching because of the spirit of the age? Never; unless it be to fight the spirit of the age more desperately than ever. We ask for no terms between Christ and His enemies except these, unconditional surrender to Him. The gospel cannot be altered to your taste; therefore alter yourself so as to meet its requirements.

III. An indignant reply to this horrible inference.

1. Paul gives a solemn negative: God forbid! All the opponents of the gospel cannot move it by a hairs breadth; they cannot injure a single stone of this Divine building.

2. He utters a vehement protestation: Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. You know that if the majority goes in a particular direction, you are apt to say, It must be so, for everybody says so. But what everybody says is not therefore true. If God says one thing, and every man in the world says another, God is true, and all men are false. God speaks the truth, and cannot lie. We are to believe Gods truth if nobody else believes it.

3. He uses a Scriptural argument. He quotes what David had said in the Fifty-first Psalm, That Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou art judged.

(1) God will be justified in everything that He has said. God shall also be justified when He judges and condemns men.

(2) A very startling expression is used here: That Thou mightest overcome when Thou art judged. Think of this enormous evil; here are men actually trying to judge the Divine judgments, and to sit as if they were the god of God. Still the verdict will be in Gods favour. It would be proved that He had neither said anything untrue, nor done anything unjust. Conclusion:

1. I want the Lords people to be brave about the things of God. There has been too much of yielding, and apologising, and compromising.

2. If you are opposed to God, I beseech you give up your opposition at once. This battle cannot end well for you unless you yield yourself to God. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

God trite

The primary meaning of truth in Greek is openness: what is not concealed; but in Hebrew, that which sustains, which does not fail or disappoint our expectations. The true therefore is–

I. That which is real as opposed to what is fictitious or imaginary. Jehovah is the true God, because He is really God, while the gods of the heathen are vanity and nothing.

II. That which completely comes up to its idea, or what it purports to be. A true man is a man in whom the idea of manhood is fully realised. The true God is He in whom is found all that Godhead imports.

III. That in which the reality corresponds to the manifestation. God is true because He really is what He declares Himself to be; because He is what He commands us to believe Him to be; and because all His declarations correspond to what really is.

IV. That which can be depended upon, which does not fail, or change, or disappoint. In this sense God is true as He is immutable and faithful. His promise cannot fail. His word never disappoints: it abideth forever. (C. Hodge, D. D.)

Gods truth

1. Will survive all human lies.

2. Will be amply justified.

3. Will be triumphantly vindicated. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Standing to what God has said

I admire the spirit of the boy who mentioned something which his mother said. One said, It is not so, and he said, It is so; my mother said it. But, said the other, it is not so. Says he, If mother said it, it is so; and if it is not so, it is so if mother said it. And I will stand to that with God. If God has said it, it is so, and you shall prove to a demonstration if you like it is not so; but it is so, and there will I stand. And be a fool, says one. Yes, a fool; for such hath He chosen to seek to do things that make others who do not believe stand aghast: only believe thou, and stand thou to it, and it shall be impossible for thee, a child of God, to be driven to distrust thy Father. It ought to be so. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The goodness and wisdom of Gods law unimpeachable

It has ever been held the highest wisdom for a man not merely to submit to necessity–necessity will make him submit–but to know and believe well that the stern thing which necessity had ordered was the wisest, the best, the thing wanted there. To cease his frantic pretension of scanning this great Gods-world in his small fraction of a brain; to know that it had verily, though deep beyond his soundings, a just law, that the soul of it was good–that his part in it was to conform to the law of the whole, and in devout silence follow that; not questioning it, obeying it as unquestionable. (T. Carlyle.)

Ideal standards of duty

The apostle had been showing the Jews that they had utterly failed of becoming truly religious by means of the old law. And the question arose, What! was the law, then, good for nothing? The law was good, but man was weak; therefore it did not work out that which its interior spiritual tendency would have wrought out if it had been unchecked. But then God attempted to do what He was unable to do! If the law was dishonoured in the conduct of the Jews, how should the Lawgiver retain honour? The tendency of the Jewish objector was to defend himself by bringing down the character and government of God; and the apostle answered, Let the justice and goodness of God remain untarnished, however it may affect mens reputation. And the doctrine which we deduce from this passage is–

I. The tendency of the heart to seek to diminish the intensity of self-condemnation by lowering the standard of duty. All sense of self-condemnation arises from a comparison of ones deeds, character, life and motives, with certain standards of duty. If there had been no law, there could have been no sense of violating law, and none, therefore, of sin. There is one thing which we bear less willingly than any other–namely, a sharp sense of shame in self-condemnation. There is no other feeling that seems to suffocate a man more than to be worried by his own accusing and condemning conscience. While, then, this feeling is so unbearable, it is scarcely surprising that men attempt to get rid of it. They pad their conduct, as it were, that the yoke may not bear so heavily where they feel sore. Therefore, men tell themselves more lies in this direction than in any other. They deliberately fool themselves–and for the same reason that men take opiates. It is not good, said the physician, that yon should take opiates to remove that sharp pain. You had better remove the cause, and so get rid of the pain. But, you say, I must pursue my business; and, though it may not be the best thing, give me the opiate. Men will not, if they can help it, bear the ache of self-condemnation; and by every means in their power they are perpetually trying to get rid of it. The ordinary method is to impair that rule of conduct, or that ideal of light, which condemns them. They attack that which attacks them. Men plead the force of circumstances for breaking the laws which are most painful to them. They attempt to show that they are not to blame. They plead that breaking the law is not very sinful. That is, to save themselves, they destroy the dignity and the importance of the law. Let us trace this tendency.

1. It begins in early life.

(1) A child that will not obey his parents injunctions begins, after a while, to find fault with the rigour by which he is held in check; and as he gets older he finds fault with, and endeavours to throw off, parental authority. To be sure, he says, I have gone forth at untimely hours, had my own way in contravention of express authority; but then, I am not so much to blame. Who could live in a family screwed up as this is? A man must have some room. What is all this but an attempt to excuse his own disobedience, by inveighing against the law under which the obedience takes place?

(2) When the young go forth to the training ground of life, they manifest the same tendency. The truant and dullard at school turns against the master, and at last against the school. He declares that it is not his fault. Or, if he admits that it is his fault in part, he pleads the provocation; and so the rebellious boy at school tarnishes the good reputation of the teacher, and inveighs against the school.

2. It runs through industrial forms.

(1) If in a trade or profession, a man prefers to sport rather than to work, and is indolent, and unsteady, when the pressure of blame and condemnation begins to come on him, he turns instantly to blame everybody and everything but his own self. Or perhaps the plea is urged that such and such a calling cannot be successfully followed without moral obliquity. What is this but destroying their reputation for the sake of shielding their own?

3. It finds its way into social relations. When men defy the public sentiment which expresses the social conscience of the community, and come under its ban, and begin to smart, they attack that sentiment. If it be a course of impurity that they have pursued, they charge sentiment with prudery; if they have been going in ways in which they have left truth far behind, they charge it with fanaticism. And, more than that, they do not believe there is anything in the community better than they are.

4. It pervades the pleas by which criminals seek to defend themselves. As men begin to violate the laws of the community, as they begin to suffer under the loss of reputation, they seek to excuse themselves from blame, and to fix it upon others. Even when the law cannot get its hand upon them; or when, getting it upon them, it cannot hold them; and when they begin to feel that the unwritten law, which no man can escape, the judgment of good mens thoughts, the wintry blast of good mens indignation round about them, and they are called sharpers, and are treated as such, they complain that it is an indignity heaped upon them; that it is a wrong done to them, and say, Society is wrongly organised. If it were better organised, business would be conducted differently, and men would act differently. But how can you expect that a man will be right when everything is organised on wrong principles?

5. It manifests itself in mens arguments on the subject of vice.

(1) Here is a man who says, I am no more intemperate than anybody else. I am frank and open. I drink, and show it. Just go behind the door and see what these temperance men do. What is this but the plea of a man who, not satisfied with being a drunkard, is destroying the very ideal of temperance?

(2) Here is a man who has utterly gone from chastity. That is bad enough; but that is not all. He says, Impure, am I? Well, I think I have company enough in this world. No one is pure. It is because they cannot, and not because they will not, that they do not run into excesses. Such men stand inveighing against the memory of their very mother, and whelming the reputation of pure and noble sisters, and a man who has lost respect for womanhood in actual life may be considered as given over.

(3) There are those who pursue the same course in regard to probity. They are not themselves truth speakers; neither do they believe that any man does speak the truth. I am a swindler, says one. But who is not? Every man has his price. And what does he do? He destroys the very ideal of honesty by declaring that nobody is honest.

6. It may also be traced in mens reasonings on the subject of religious truth. Men care very little what theology teaches, provided it does not come home to them, either as a restraint or as a criterion of judgment; but when they begin to be made uncomfortable; when for one or another reason the pulpit is a power, and they find it in the way of their ambition, or gain, or comfort; when theology begins to stir them up, and sit in judgment on them, then there is a strong tendency developed in them to find fault with the truth, and to justify themselves by adopting what they are pleased to call a more liberal view. And so men find fault with the fundamental principles of a moral government. And under such circumstances they go from church to church to find a more lenient pulpit.

II. The importance of maintaining our ideal of duty in spite of all human imperfections. The destruction of ideal standards is utterly ruinous to our manhood.

1. What is an ideal? A perception of something higher and better than we have reached, either in single actions, or in our life and character. Do I need to ask you what your ideal is, ye that have sought in a thousand ways to reach that very conception? The musician is charmed with the song that he seems to hear angels sing; but when he attempts to write it down with his hands he curses the blundering rudeness of material things, by which he cannot incarnate so spiritual a thing as his thought. The true orator is a man whose unspoken speech is a thousand times better than his utterance. The true artist is a man who says, Oh! if you could see what I saw when I first tried to make this, you would think this most homely. This excelsior of every soul; this sense of something finer, and nobler, and truer, and better–so long as this lasts a man can scarcely go down to the vulgarism. A man who is satisfied with himself because he is better than his fellow men. You never thought as well as you ought to think. You never planned as nobly as you ought to plan. You never executed as well as you ought to execute. Over every production there ought to hover, perpetually, your blessed ideal, telling you, Your work is poor–it should be better; so that every day you should lift yourself higher and higher, with an everlasting pursuit of hope which shall only end in perfection when you reach the land beyond.

2. But what if some mephitic gas shall extinguish this candle of God which casts its light down on our path to guide us, and direct our course up? What if the breath of man, for whom it was sent, should blow it out, and he be left in darkness to sink down toward the beast that perishes? Woe be to that man whose ideal has gone out and left him to the vulgar level of common life without upward motive. And yet, that which our text reveals, and revealing condemns, is universal–namely, the attempt of men to find fault with law, or with God, the fountain of law, with the ideal of rectitude, rather than find fault with themselves. Nay, Let God be true, but every man a liar. (H. Ward Beecher.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 3. JEW. For what] , What then, if some did not believe, &c. If some of the Jewish nation have abused their privileges, and acted contrary to their obligations, shall their wickedness annul the PROMISE which God made to Abraham, that he would, by an everlasting covenant, be a God to him and to his seed after him? Ge 17:7. Shall God, therefore, by stripping the Jews of their peculiar honour, as you intimate he will, falsify his promise to the nation, because some of the Jews are bad men?

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

If some did not believe; if some did remain in infidelity, Act 28:24, if they would give no credit to the oracle, and to the promise of a Messiah.

The faith of God; i.e. the truth and faithfulness of God, Psa 33:4. The whole verse is another prolepsis. The implied objection is this, That the Jews are nothing the better for these oracles, or have no advantage by them, if by unbelief they have rendered themselves unworthy or incapable of benefit by them. The answer to this is anticipated by propounding another question; Can the infidelity of some be any hinderance of Gods performing his promise to others, to his chosen ones? The interrogation is a negation, q.d. It cannot be, as the following words show: see 2Ti 2:13.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3, 4. For what if some did notbelieve?It is the unbelief of the great body of the nationwhich the apostle points at; but as it sufficed for his argument toput the supposition thus gently, he uses this word “some”to soften prejudice.

shall their unbelief make thefaith of Godor, “faithfulness of God.”

of none effect?“nullify,””invalidate” it.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For what if some did not believe?…. It is suggested, that though the Jews enjoyed such a privilege, some of them did not believe; which is an aggravation of their sin, that they should have such means of light, knowledge, and faith, such clear and full evidences of things, and yet be incredulous: though it should be observed that this was the case only of some, not of all; and must be understood, not of their disbelief of the Scriptures being the word of God, for these were always received as such by them all, and were constantly read, heard, and attended to; but either of their disobedience to the commands of God required in the law, or of their disregard to the promises of God, and prophecies of the Messiah, and of their disbelief in the Messiah himself when he came; but now this was no objection to the advantage they had of the Gentiles, since this was not owing to want of evidence in the word of God, but to the darkness and unbelief of their minds: and,

shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? no, their unbelief could not, and did not make void the veracity and faithfulness of God in his promises concerning the Messiah, recorded in the oracles of God, which they had committed to them; for notwithstanding this, God raised up the Messiah from among them, which is another advantage the Jews had of, the Gentiles; inasmuch as “of” them, “as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore”, Ro 9:5, and he sent him to them, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as a prophet and minister; he sent his Gospel to them first, and called out by it from among them his elect, nor did he take it from them until he had done this: and he took it away only; until “the fulness of the Gentiles”, Ro 11:25, is brought in; and then the Gospel shall come to them again with power, and “all Israel shall be saved” (#Ro 11:26).

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

For what if? ( ?). But Westcott and Hort print it, ? . See Php 1:18 for this exclamatory use of (for how? How stands the case?).

Some were without faith (). First aorist active indicative of , old verb, to disbelieve. This is the common N.T. meaning (Luke 24:11; Luke 24:41; Acts 28:24; Rom 4:20). Some of them “disbelieved,” these “depositaries and guardians of revelation” (Denney). But the word also means to be unfaithful to one’s trust and Lightfoot argues for that idea here and in 2Ti 2:13. The Revised Version renders it “faithless” there. Either makes sense here and both ideas are true of some of the Jews, especially concerning the Messianic promises and Jesus.

The faithfulness of God ( ). Undoubtedly has this sense here and not “faith.” God has been faithful (2Ti 2:13) whether the Jews (some of them) were simply disbelievers or untrue to their trust. Paul can use the words in two senses in verse 3, but there is no real objection to taking , , , all to refer to faithfulness rather than just faith.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Did not believe [] . Rev., were without faith. Not, as some, were unfaithful, which is contrary to New Testament usage. See Mr 16:11, 16; Luk 24:11, 41; Act 28:24; Rom 4:20, etc. The Rev. rendering is preferable, as bringing out the paronomasia between the Greek words : were without faith; their want of faith; the faithfulness of God. Faith of God. Better, as Rev., faithfulness; the good faith of God; His fidelity to His promises. For this sense see on Mt 23:23. Compare Tit 2:10, and see on faithful, 1Jo 1:9; Rev 1:5; Rev 3:14. Compare 1Co 1:9; 1Co 10:13; 2Co 1:18.

Make without effect [] . See on Luk 13:7. The word occurs twenty – five times in Paul, and is variously rendered in A. V. make void, destroy, loose, bring to nought, fail, vanish away, put away, put down, abolish, cease. The radical meaning is to make inert or idle. Dr. Morison acutely observes that it negatives the idea of agency or operation, rather than of result or effect. It is rather to make inefficient than to make without effect. So in Luk 13:7, why should the tree be allowed to make the ground idle? 1Co 13:8, prophecies shall fail, or have no more work to do. 2Ti 1:10 Christ abolished death. There is no more work for it. Rom 6:6, the body of sin is rendered inactive. Rom 3:31, Do we deprive the law of its work – render it a dead letter?

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For what if some did not believe,” (ti gar; ei epistesan tines) “For what? if some disbelieved, believed not, or were skeptical?” and they had, many of them not believed, Joh 1:11-12; Joh 10:25; Joh 12:37. Some without faith, did not believe, Rom 10:16; Heb 4:2.

2) “Shall their unbelief,” (me he apistia auton) “The unbelief of them (will) not;” Skepticism does not invalidate, destroy, or abrogate Truth expressed in the Word of God or testimony of God’s witnesses, Isa 55:8-11; Act 17:31-34.

3) “Make the faith of God without effect?” (ten pistin tou theou katargesei) “Make the faith of God of none effect, nil,” Will it? The oracles of God, the Law, Prophets, and the Psalms had their Redemption hopes fulfilled in Christ. Rejection of Divine Truth does not weaken and wilt as all are judged by it, Num 23:19; Rom 11:29; Rom 14:11-12; Heb 4:12.

The Word of God is a compass and guide in darkness and storms on land on sea, or in the air; It is trustworthy by day and by night pointing to a fair haven where Jesus awaits –Follow it when men believe –follow it when other men doubt, follow it when others scoff, and you shall be glad you did, at the end of the way! Psa 119:105.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

3. What indeed if some, etc. As before, while regarding the Jews as exulting in the naked sign, he allowed them no not even a spark of glory; so now, while considering the nature of the sign, he testifies that its virtue ( virtutem , efficacy) is not destroyed, no, not even by their inconstancy. As then he seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished through the ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of reticence, as he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he might have truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant of God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some.

Shall their unbelief, etc. Καταργεῖν is properly to render void and ineffectual; a meaning most suitable to this passage. For Paul’s inquiry is not so much whether the unbelief of men neutralizes the truth of God, so that it should not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether it hinders its effect and fulfillment as to men. The meaning then is, “Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God’s covenant so abrogated by their perfidiousness that it brings forth no fruit among them? To this he answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God should lose its stability through man’s wickedness. Though then the greater part had nullified and trodden under foot God’s covenant, it yet retained its efficacy and manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with regard to a few of that nation: and it is then efficacious when the grace or the blessing of the Lord avails to eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except when the promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual covenant is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained in that nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away from the privileges of the covenant.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(3) For what if.-What (follows) if, &c. Or we may take the first two words by themselves, and throw the next two clauses together. How stands the case? If some rejected the faith, shall their rejection make void or defeat the faithfulness of God?
The Apostle considers an objection that might be brought against his argument that the divine revelation vouchsafed to them was a special privilege of the Jewish people. It might be said that they had forfeited and cancelled this privilege by their unbelief. He first reduces the objection to its proper limits; it was not all, but some, who were unbelievers. But granting that there were some who did not believe this fact would have no power to shake the eternal promises of God.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(c.) Yet without impeaching God’s faith unbelieving Jews are damned, ( Rom 3:3-4 .)

3. For The apostle answers the secret objection which might arise in thought, that Christianity makes the gift of those oracles in reality a failure, and so invalidates the advantage of the Jew. He admits that on the human side there was a failure through unbelief; but that proves no failure on God’s part, and so no depreciation of the advantage. Man’s failures may defeat the gracious dispensations of God, but do not disprove nor diminish their original divine graciousness.

Some Alas! the great majority is to be included in this, the apostle’s gentle some.

Did not believe The past unbelief of the Jewish people is, most delicately, alone specified; but the total rejection by the Jews and of the Jews was included by terrible implication.

Unbelief faith Man’s faithlessness and God’s faithfulness are here set in contrast. Both faiths were pledged in the Abrahamic covenant; man’s was broker and God’s maintained.

Without effect? And so prove the oracles of God to be a vain gift? The full advantage of the Jew as a beneficence from God stands therefore unimpeached by his wilful forfeiture of it. Be it noted that whether God’s side of the covenant was hereby broken is the question more fully discussed in Rom 9:6-14. And this passage conclusively proves that the exclusion of the rejected side in Rom 9:6-14, was based not on the “Divine Sovereignty,” but on their own unbelief.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For what if some were without faith? Will their want of faith make of none effect (render inoperative) the faithfulness of God?’

Taking this as the question of the supposed antagonist, the questioner is now arguing that the unfaithfulness of some among the Jews did not render inoperative God’s faithfulness (the use of only ‘some’ being without faith does of course go against what Paul has previously said. His point has been that all were faithless). Surely, they were saying, God would still be true to His word and promises even if many among the Jews failed. And in Jewish eyes this meant that He would continue to favour Jews at the judgment. So he asks, ‘Will their want of faith make of none effect (render inoperative) the faithfulness of God?’ Surely, he is saying, God will remain faithful to His covenant whatever some Jews might do. And they were right. But where their premise failed was in that they overlooked the fact that they had ALL failed.

If, however we take them as Paul’s words, then he is arguing that the faithlessness of many Jews who did not respond to God’s revelation (and who had rejected their Messiah), did not demonstrate that God had been unfaithful or prevent His faithfulness from operating (something he will prove in chapters 9-11 where he points out that God always has His chosen remnant to whom He is faithful). Indeed His judgment of those unbelieving Jews would rather demonstrate His faithfulness, for that was what He had promised in the covenant, blessing and cursing (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). So the implication is that this argument basically underlined their own unrighteousness and unbelief, rather than challenging His faithfulness, for His faithfulness was still operative in salvation towards those who did believe, while it was also being operative in respect of those who would be judged. The former would be blessed and the latter cursed in accord with Deuteronomy 28.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Rom 3:3. For what if some did not believe? &c. This and the following verse are generally understood as a continuation and explication of the Apostle’s answer in the second verse; whereby the sense of the third and fourth verses is generally embarrassed, as they will not admit of a connection with the second verse. For in truth, Rom 3:3 is not the words of the Apostle, but a second question or objection advanced by the Jews: nor is , for, a causal, shewing the reason why the having the oracles of God committed to them was a privilege, notwithstanding their unbelief; but the original words , are interrogative, and may be translated, well, and what? And thus the phrase is frequently used in Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates: see particularly, lib. 2. 100. 6 sect. 2. Whence it appears that the phrase , in a dialogue, and when the word has no following substantive to agree with it, is a form of introducing another question or objection by the inquirer. And as the Apostle in this place is carrying on a dialogue after the Socratic manner, it is to be understood as advancing a new question or objection; and thus every thing stands right and easy, which otherwise is in great disorder. Did not believe, should rather be, Have not been faithful; that is to say, have not been obedient. See 1 Pet. ii 7. The Jew here alludes to the charge of wickedness which the Apostle had brought against the Jews in the foregoing chapter. St. Paul has the same sentiment as the next clause in chap. Rom 9:6. He is speaking of the same thing in both places; and therefore evidently the faith of God, here, is the same with the faith of God, there, or that faithful promise which he made to Abraham. See Gen 17:7-8. Tillotson’s Sermons, vol. 12: serm. 1. The verse may be rendered, For what if some of them were unfaithful, shall their unfaithfulness make void the faithfulness of God?

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 3:3 . Not an objection to the preceding, but a guarantee of the . . just mentioned , as something that has not been cancelled and revoked through the partial unbelief of the people. “ For how? what is the case? [738] If some refused the faith, will their unbelief make void the faithfulness of God? ” will it produce the effect that God shall now regard the promises once committed to the Jews as void, and Himself as no longer bound to His word therein pledged? The and the are by the context necessarily referred to the . ; the unbelief of a part of the Jews in the promises manifested itself, namely, by their rejecting the Messiah who had appeared according to the promise. So in substance also Matthias, who nevertheless apprehends the notion of . as unfaithfulness towards what was entrusted to them, which the did not use for the purpose of letting themselves be led thereby to Christ. But and (even in 2Ti 2:13 ) mean specifically throughout the N. T. (see in this Epistle Rom 4:20 , Rom 11:20 ; Rom 11:23 ; compare Morison, p. 23) unbelief , not unfaithfulness , although Hofmann also ultimately comes to adopt this notion. This remark also applies against the supposition of Kllner, de Wette, Mehring, and older writers, that Paul meant the unfaithfulness (the disobedience ) of the Jews in the times before Christ . [739] Such a view is opposed to the context; and must not the idea, that the earlier breaches of covenant on the part of the Jews might possibly annul the , have been wholly strange to Paul and his Jewish readers, since they knew from experience that, even when the Jews had heaped unfaithfulness upon unfaithfulness, God always committed to them anew, through His prophets, the promises of the Messiah? In the mind of the Apostle the idea of the was fixed (Rom 3:25 ; Act 17:30 ). Therefore we cannot understand (with Philippi) unbelief in the promises shown in the period before Christ to be here referred to. But according to the doctrine of faith in the promised One who had come, as the condition of the Messianic salvation, the doubt might very easily arise: May not the partial unbelief of the Jews since the appearance of Christ , to whom the referred, possibly cancel the divine utterances of promise committed to the nation? Notwithstanding the simple and definite conception of throughout the N. T., Hofmann here multiplies the ideas embraced so as to include as well disobedience to the law as unbelief towards the Gospel and unbelief towards the prophetic word of promise a grouping together of very different significations, which is the consequence of the erroneous and far too wide sense assigned to the . .

. ] The genitive is necessarily determined to be the genitive of the subject, partly by , partly by Rom 3:4 , and partly by . in Rom 3:5 . Therefore: the fides Dei in keeping the , keeping His word , in virtue of which He does not abandon His promises to His people. [740] Compare 2Ti 2:13 , and the frequent , 1Co 1:9 ; 1Co 10:13 ; 2Co 1:18 al [741]

Observe further that Paul designates the unbelievers only by , some , which is not contemptuous or ironical (Tholuck, Philippi; compare Bengel), nor intended as a milder expression (Grotius), but is rather employed to place in a stronger light the negation of the effect under discussion; and, considering the relative import of , it is not at variance with the truth, for although there were many ( , Plat. Phaed. p. 58 D), still they were not all . Compare Rom 11:17 , and on 1Co 10:7 ; Krger, 51, 16, 14.

[738] ; compare Phi 1:18 . Elz., Bengel, and Lachm. place the sign of interrogation after . Van Hengel follows them, also Th. Schott and Hofmann. It is impossible to decide the question. Still, even in classic authors, the ; standing alone is frequent, “ubi quis cum alacritate quadam ad novam sententiam transgreditur,” Khner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 2; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. vi. 60; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 73 f.

[739] Especially would be quite unsuitable, because it would be absolutely untrue. All were disobedient and unfaithful. See ver. 9 ff.

[740] It is the fides, qua Deus promissis stat , not in reality different from the idea of the in ver. 4. The word , however, is selected as the correlative of . Despite the Jewish it continues the case, not that God has been (in that, namely, He has spoken among the people, Hofmann thinks), but that He is , in that, namely, He does not allow Himself to be moved by that to become likewise , which He would be, if He left His own committed to the Jews unfulfilled. He will not allow this case of the annulling of His to occur. Compare 2Ti 2:13 .

[741] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1829
THE FOLLY OF UNBELIEF

Rom 3:3-4. What if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.

IN every age of the world man has been prone to disbelieve the testimony of God: our first parents fell by questioning the prohibition which God had given them, and doubting the penalty with which it was enforced. Their posterity, born in their fallen image, have but too faithfully copied their example. By unbelief, the antediluvian world were overwhelmed: by unbelief, Gods chosen people the Jews have been despoiled of all their privileges. The same malignant principle pervades also the Christian church. We profess indeed, like the Jews of old, to venerate the sacred oracles; but there is scarcely a truth contained in them, which is not practically, and almost, universally, denied. Yet is this no reason for questioning their divine authority: for God is as immutable in his word, as he is in his nature; and, as his existence would not be affected, though the whole world should be atheists, so neither will one jot or tittle of his word fail, though the world should be infidels. This is the very point on which St. Paul is insisting in the passage before us. Having observed that the Jews were highly privileged in having the oracles of God committed to them, he anticipates the objection which might be urged against him from their unbelief; and allowing the truth of the fact, That they were very generally disbelieved, he denies and refutes the inference that might be drawn from it, by declaring, That their unbelief, however general it might be, could never invalidate the truth of God.
From his words we shall be led to consider,

I.

The prevalence of unbelief

It is not our intention to expose the errors of infidelity, or the sophistry with which the truth of God has been assailed; but rather to point out that secret unbelief which works in the minds of all, even with respect to the most acknowledged truths. That such unbelief prevails, cannot possibly be doubted, if we observe,

1.

How general is mens neglect of the word of God

[The sacred volume lies by us: we have it in our own language, that all may read it; and it is statedly read and explained to us in public. But how few study it! how few regard it! how few are there who do not give a decided, yea, an exclusive preference to books of human science, and even to any worthless novel, or ephemeral compilation! And what is the cause of this? Could they be thus indifferent, if they believed it to be the word of God; the word of God to them? Would any one manifest such indifference towards a will in which he was informed that great estates were bequeathed to him? or even towards a map, which would shew him his way through a trackless desert? How much less then would any disregard the Holy Scriptures, if they really believed them to be the charter of their privileges, and the only sure directory to heaven! They would rather account them more precious than gold, and esteem them more than their necessary food [Note: Psa 119:72. Job 23:12.].]

2.

What contempt men discover for the truths they do hear

[Men hear that there is such a place as heaven, where the saints shall live in everlasting felicity; and such a place as hell, where the wicked shall lie down in everlasting burnings: yet are they neither allured, nor alarmed. When the ministers of God insist on these subjects, they are considered only as preaching cunningly devised fables. But could this be the case, if men believed the testimony of God? Do men feel no emotion at the news of some unexpected benefit arising to them, or some unforeseen calamity impending over them? Do men treat with contempt a sentence of condemnation, or a notice of reprieve? How then could men so disregard the things revealed in the Gospel, if they believed them to be the very truths of God?]

3.

How men expect things in direct opposition to the word of God

[Unconverted men will as confidently expect to go to heaven, as if the word of God were altogether on their side. The drunkard, the swearer, the sabbath-breaker, the whore-monger, are as persuaded that they shall never come into condemnation, as if there were not one word in all the book of God that declared the contrary. They will never believe that the wrath of God is revealed against such sins as theirs, notwithstanding God so positively declares, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God [Note: 1Co 6:9.]. They do not indeed imagine that any will be finally lost. They can hear of thousands slain in battle, and yet extend their thoughts no further than the grave. The idea that multitudes of them may possibly have died in their sins, and been consigned over to endless misery, seems so harsh, that they cannot harbour it in their minds one moment, notwithstanding God expressly says, that the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God [Note: Psa 9:17.]. Could all this be so, if they believed the word of God? Would not their sentiments then be more conformed to it? Would they not be assured, that, however it should be well with the righteous, it must and should go ill with the wicked [Note: Isa 3:10-11.]?]

4.

How little men are influenced by the things they profess most to believe

[They profess to believe that there is a God: yet they do not love him, or fear him, or trust in him, or regard him, any more than if there were no such Being. They profess to believe that they have an immortal soul; yet they pay no more attention to its interests, than if it were not to survive the body. They profess to believe that there will be a day of judgment, wherein they shall give account of themselves to God: yet they are not at all solicitous to know how their account stands; they bestow no pains in preparing for that day; they presume that others are happy, and that they shall fare as well as those who have gone before them; and thus they hazard their eternal welfare on a mere groundless surmise. They profess to believe that death will put a period to their day of grace, and that it may snatch them away suddenly, and unawares: yet they live as securely, as if they could call days and years their own: Soul, take thine ease, is the constant language of their hearts. Now, whence is all this? Will any one say, that these men are thoroughly persuaded even of the things which they profess most to believe? they certainly are not: they give a general assent to them, because they have been educated in these particular sentiments, and because their reason cannot but acquiesce in them as true: but as for the faith which realizes invisible things, which is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, they have no portion of it; they are shut up altogether in unbelief.]

The prevalence of unbelief being thus unquestionably proved, we proceed to point out,

II.

The folly of it

A just view of this subject will soon convince us, that the very men who glory in their unbelief, and say, Wisdom shall die with us [Note: Job 12:2.], are indeed influenced by the most foolish and fatal of all principles: for, with respect to unbelief,

1.

It cannot avert the evils which it affects to despise

[Unbelief can never make void the truth of God. It did not in the days of old. When Satan said to our first parents, Ye shall not surely die, and they credited his testimony in preference to Gods, did their unbelief avail them? was the threatening less certain? Did God forbear to inflict it? Did not their souls die that very day, being instantly separated from God, which constitutes spiritual death, and becoming obnoxious to his wrath, the chief ingredient of eternal death? Did not their bodies also, though, for the peopling of the earth, and for other gracious purposes, they were suffered to continue awhile, become impregnated with the seeds of death, whereby they were in due time reduced again to their native dust?
When the unbelieving Jews rejected their Messiah, were the purposes of God at all frustrated? Yea, were they not rather furthered and accomplished by their unbelief? and were not the whole nation, except a little remnant, broken off from their stock, and the Gentiles, whom they regarded as accursed, engrafted on it?
So we may now ask of unbelieving sinners, What if ye do not believe? shall your unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Will God cease to he an holy, sin-hating, sin-avenging God, because ye presume to think him even such an one as yourselves? Shall sin no longer be debasing, defiling, damning, because ye choose to esteem it light and venial? Shall death wait your pleasure, because ye think ye have made a covenant with it, and put it far from you? shall the judgment-day lose its solemnity, and the account you are to give be made less strict, because you take it for granted, that all shall then be well with you? Shall hell be divested of its horrors, because you will not believe that there is any such place, or because you are averse to hear of it? Shall the nature and blessedness of heaven be altogether changed, in order that it may, according to your conceits, be the residence of the wicked as well as of the righteous? In short, is it reasonable, is it probable, is it possible, that the truth of God should be made void, merely because you do not choose to believe it?]

2.

It enhances and insures the evils, whose very existence it presumes to deny

[The Apostle tells us what should be the fixed principle of our minds, Let God be true; but every man a liar. But unbelief reverses this; and gives, not only to the testimony of man, but even to his most groundless conjectures, a greater weight than to the most solemn declarations of Jehovah. What an affront is this to the Majesty of heaven! Is there a man on earth that would not take offence at such an indignity, especially if it were offered to him by those whom he had never deceived, and for whose sake alone he had spoken? Let it not then be thought, that, to treat God as though he had no veracity, is a light matter; for surely it must greatly provoke the eyes of his glory.
Besides, unbelief, while it thus incenses God against us, rejects the only possible means of reconciliation with him; and consequently rivets all our guilt upon us Judge then whether they, who yield themselves up to its influence, be not blinded by Satan, and victims to their own delusions [Note: 2Co 4:4. Isa 66:4.]?]

By way of improvement, let me commend to your attention the grand object of a Christians faith

[It is to little purpose to have general notions of the prevalence and folly of unbelief, if we do not apply them particularly to that fundamental doctrine of Scripture, That we are to be justified solely by faith in the Lord Jesus. This is that, which is emphatically called, The Gospel; concerning the necessity of believing which, nothing more need be urged, than that assertion of our Lord, He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned [Note: Mar 16:16.]. The point for us now to determine, is, Do we indeed believe in Christ for the justification of our souls? We are continually apt to mistake the nature of saving faith; and, for want of right views of that, we put away from ourselves all that is spoken respecting unbelief, as though we had no experience of it, no concern about it. But it has been already abundantly shewn, that if we believe only in the manner that the generality of Christians do, we have no true faith at all. Examine then, Have you clear and lively views of Christ as the Saviour of sinners? Are you deeply convinced of your own sinfulness, and your consequent need of mercy? Have you renounced every other hope? and do you rely simply and solely on Christs atonement? Finally, are you deriving virtue from him for the healing of your corruptions, and for the bringing forth of all the fruits of righteousness to his praise and glory? This, and this alone, is saving faith; and he, who thus believes, shall be saved; and he, who does not thus believe, shall be damned. Let not any object, and say, What is there in this faith that should save us, or in the want of it that should condemn us? Our only inquiry must be, Has God suspended our salvation on the exercise of a living faith, or not? If he has, we have no more to say, than, Let God be true: but every man a liar. To dispute against him is to dispute against the wind. The wind will not stop its course for us: yet sooner should that be done, yea, sooner should heaven and earth pass away, than one jot or tittle of his word should fail. If then no objections of ours can ever disprove the truth of Gods word, or prevent the execution of it on our own souls, let us guard against that principle of unbelief, which operates so powerfully, so fatally, within us. Let us remember where our danger lies: it is not in giving too much weight to the declarations of God: but in softening them down, and accommodating them to our vain wishes or carnal apprehensions. Let then the fore-mentioned record abide upon our minds. Let us be persuaded that he, whom God blesses, shall be blessed; and he, whom God curses, shall be cursed. In other words, Let us rest assured, that life is to be found in Christ alone; and that he who hath the Son, hath life; and he who hath not the Son of God, hath not life [Note: 1Jn 5:11-12.].]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Ver. 3. The faith of God ] That is, his faithful promises, opposed to man’s perfidy. Fides quia fit quod dictum est. God is faithful, saith the apostle often.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

3. ] And this advantage is not cancelled, nor the covenant annulled, by their disobedience.

;] For what ? (‘quid enim?’ Hor. Sat. i. 1. 7.) The confirms the preceding the indicates some difficulty, or anticipated objection to it.

. ] If we place an interrogation at , we must render this, suppose some were unfaithful ; if only a comma, as in E. V., ‘ For what if ’ The former seems preferable, as more according to usage. See Phi 1:18 .

, did not believe . If this seem out of place here, where he is not speaking of faith or want of faith as yet, but of ( Rom 3:5 ) and moral guilt, we may meet the objection by remembering that unbelief is here taken more on its practical side, as involving disobedience , than on the other. They were , unfaithful to the covenant , the very condition of which was to walk in the ways of the Lord and observe his statutes. The word may have been chosen on account of above and . . below.

. . . .] shall their unfaithfulness (to the covenant: see above, and Wis 14:25 ; in the root of the matter, their unbelief , as in reff.: and the substantive is bound to the verb , but its rendering must be ruled by the contrast to , which must be “the faithfulness of God”) cancel (nullify) the faithfulness of God ? ‘Because they have broken faith on their part, shall God break faith also on His?’

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Rom 3:3 f. ; For how? i.e. , Well then, how stands the case? Cf. Phi 1:18 . = if some did disbelieve. It is not necessary to render this, with reference to in Rom 3:2 , “if some proved faithless to their trust”. What is in Paul’s mind is that “the oracles of God” have had their fulfilment in Christ, and that those to whom they were entrusted have in some cases (whether few or many he does not here consider) refused their faith to that fulfilment. Surely it is no proper inference that their unbelief must make God’s faithfulness of no effect. He has kept His promise, and as far as it lay with Him has maintained the original advantage of the Jews, as depositaries and first inheritors of that promise, whatever reception they may have given to its fulfilment. Away with the thought of any reflection upon Him! When the case is stated between God and man there can only be one conclusion: let God come out ( ) true, and every man a liar; let Him be just, and every man condemned. This agrees with the words of Scripture itself in Psa 51 (50):6, which Paul quotes exactly after the LXX: the Hebrew is distinctly different, but neither it nor the original context are regarded. is a translation of Hebrew words which mean “when Thou speakest,” i.e. , apparently, when Thou pronouncest sentence upon man; here the sense must be, “that Thou mayest be pronounced just in respect of what Thou hast spoken,” i.e. , the , the oracles or promises entrusted to Israel, : win thy case (see note on text). Burton, Moods and Tenses , 198, 199. : Probably the infinitive is passive: “when thou art judged”; not middle, “when thou submittest thy case to the judge”. The quotation from Psa 115:2 , , is not important: the main thing, as the formal quotation which follows shows, is the vindication of God from the charge of breach of faith with the Jews in making Christianity the fulfilment of His promises to them.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

some. Greek. tines. App-124.

did not believe. Greek. apisteo. See Act 28:24.

shall. The question is introduced by me (App-105).

unbelief. Greek. apistia. Occurs twelve times; first Mat 13:58. In Rom., here, Rom 4:20; Rom 11:20, Rom 11:23.

make . . . without effect = nullify. Greek. kalargeo. See Luk 13:7.

faith = faithfulness. Greek. pistis. App-150.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

3.] And this advantage is not cancelled, nor the covenant annulled, by their disobedience.

;] For what? (quid enim? Hor. Sat. i. 1. 7.) The confirms the preceding-the indicates some difficulty, or anticipated objection to it.

. ] If we place an interrogation at , we must render this, suppose some were unfaithful; if only a comma, as in E. V., For what if The former seems preferable, as more according to usage. See Php 1:18.

, did not believe. If this seem out of place here, where he is not speaking of faith or want of faith as yet, but of (Rom 3:5) and moral guilt, we may meet the objection by remembering that unbelief is here taken more on its practical side, as involving disobedience, than on the other. They were , unfaithful to the covenant, the very condition of which was to walk in the ways of the Lord and observe his statutes. The word may have been chosen on account of above and . . below.

. …] shall their unfaithfulness (to the covenant: see above, and Wis 14:25; in the root of the matter, their unbelief, as in reff.: and the substantive is bound to the verb , but its rendering must be ruled by the contrast to , which must be the faithfulness of God) cancel (nullify) the faithfulness of God? Because they have broken faith on their part, shall God break faith also on His?

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 3:3. , for what?), viz. shall we say Rom 3:5, where likewise , interrogative, follows; so, , LXX., Job 21:4.-, if) Thus might the Gentile rival easily object.-) The words derived from a common root are, , , , .-, some) [for many, most of the Jews], a form of expression to avoid what is disagreeable [euphemy]. Moreover, unbelievers, though numerous, are considered as some indefinitely, because they do not very much come under enumeration, ch. Rom 11:17; 1Co 10:7; 1Ti 4:1.-), the faithfulness, by which promises will be performed, and good will come [Rom 3:8]. This faithfulness remains, though all men should be unfaithful [unbelieving]; it remains, chiefly in respect of believers. They who deny universal grace, have but little [perception or] knowledge of the faithfulness of God in respect to unbelievers. With respect even to the reprobate, the antecedent will of God ought, indeed, to be held as of great account; for what they have not, they, nevertheless, might have had; and this very circumstance confers upon them an altogether great privilege; and even though they do not perceive it to be so [or uphold it], still this peculiar advantage [Rom 3:1, ] remains, that the glory of God, and the glory of the faithfulness of God, are illustrated in them. Comp. the expression, hath abounded, Rom 3:7. This, the peculiar advantage, is not to be held as of no account. The apostle, when he would vindicate our faith, with great propriety praises the faithfulness of God. Comp. 2Ti 2:13.-; shall it make of no effect?) The future, employed with great force in a negative address. The faithfulness of God is unchangeable.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 3:3

Rom 3:3

For what if some were without faith?-But did the failure of some who were circumcised in the flesh to believe in God render the promise of God to Abraham and his seed null?

shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?-Or did it prove that Gods promises had failed and God had falsified?

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

if some: Rom 9:6, Rom 10:16, Rom 11:1-7, Heb 4:2

shall: Rom 11:29, Num 23:19, 1Sa 15:29, Isa 54:9, Isa 54:10, Isa 55:11, Isa 65:15, Isa 65:16, Jer 33:24-26, Mat 24:35, 2Ti 2:13, Heb 6:13-18

faith: Psa 84:7, Joh 1:16, 2Co 3:18, 2Th 1:3, Tit 1:1, Tit 1:2

Reciprocal: 2Ki 7:2 – thou shalt see it Eze 2:5 – whether Mar 15:32 – that Luk 1:20 – which Joh 3:33 – hath set Joh 5:34 – that Act 28:24 – General Rom 1:17 – from faith Rom 3:2 – Much Rom 11:20 – because Rom 15:8 – for the 1Co 6:15 – God Gal 3:17 – none Heb 4:1 – a promise

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

3:3

Rom 3:3. The Jews were not to be blamed if some refused to believe the oracles. They would be shown to be true and a basis of faith in God in spite of the unbelief of many.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 3:3. For what if; as is the case, thus introducing the fact as an objection to be answered. Others divide the verse: For what? (i.e., what is the case). If some, etc. This turns the whole into a guarantee that the oracles are still intrusted to them. Both views are grammatical, but the usual one is preferable. Such objections would be addressed to the Apostle continually, as he labored, more or less assailed by Jewish opposition; while the confirmation of the fact of Rom 3:2 seems unnecessary.

Some were without faith. The emendations of this verse are designed to reproduce the verbal correspondence of the original. There are, however, two views of the sense: (1.) That the faithlessness of the Jews to their trust (Rom 3:2) is meant. (2.) That unbelief in the Messiah is referred to. In favor of (1) are: the immediate context, both Rom 3:2, and the thought of Gods faithfulness which follows; the fact that the doctrine of faith has not yet become prominent. But in support of (2) may be urged the common sense of the words used; the fact that Gods dealings, as told in the Old Testament make the reference to unfaithfulness superfluous; the digressive character of the passage, the causal connection between unbelief and disobedience recognized in the Bible (if they were unfaithful, it was because they were without faith). We prefer (2), and find an objection growing out of the unbelief of the Jews at that time, which is more fully discussed in chaps. 9-11. The digression is then into a region of thought where the Apostles deepest feelings were concerned. A Jew might well raise such an objection, as if to say: But how do you reconcile this advantage with the rejection of the Messiah you preach? As Lange remarks, the unbelievers always remain in the minority in real significance, let their number be ever so great.

Shall their want of faith, etc. The original shows that a negative answer is expected.

The faithfulness of God. The word used is faith, but that it has here the sense of faithfulness is plain, from the Old Testament usage, and from the fact that no other sense is appropriately applied to God.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here follows a second objection: Some might say, “True, the Jews had the oracles of God, but some of them never believed them, nor gave any credit to the promise of the Messias contained in them; therefore, they had no advantage by them.” Be it so, saith the apostle: yet shall the unbelief of some make the faith or fidelity of God in his promises, of no effect to others?

God forbid! that such a thought should enter into our hearts: But, on the contrary, let God be acknowledged true and faithful to his word, though all men should prove liars.

Learn hence, 1. That whether we believe the fidelity of the promises, or assent to the veracity of God in his threatenings, or not; his word standeth fast forever. The promise shall be fulfilled, the threatening executed; only with this difference, we cannot personally find the comfort of the promise without faith, but we shall experimentally feel the terror of the threatening whether we believe it or no.

Learn, 2. The wonderful condescending grace of God towards those who have any measures of true faith , though with great mixtures of unbelief.

Oh how faithful is God to us (if in truth believers) in the midst of our unfaithfulness to him! the unbelief of men shall not make fidelity or faith of God of no effect.

Learn, 3. That as God is a God of truth, so all men are false and liars, compared with God: As God cannot lie, neither deceive, nor be deceived, so every man is fallible and false; that is, under a possibility of deceiving, and being deceived. Let God be true, but every man a liar.

Learn, 4. That a good man under afflictions, if very careful to justify and clear God from dealing unjustly with him in any of his severest dispensations towards him. The apostle here quotes That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and clear when thou art judged Psa 51:4. As if David had said, “I know the men of the world, when they see me afflicted, will be ready to judge hardly of God for it; therefore, to stop their mouths, to clear the justice of God, that he may overcome, when he is judged for dealing rigorously with me, I do freely confess my sin unto him, with all the aggravating circumstances of it, that all the world may justify him, how great soever my sufferings may be from him.” A child of God, under the rod of God, desires nothing more than to justify him in all his severest dealings with, and dispensations towards him.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Rom 3:3-4. For what if some And they a considerable number, of those who once possessed these invaluable treasures; did not believe Them, or did not duly consider what they speculatively believed, and so rejected the gospel to which they were intended to lead; shall their unbelief make without effect Shall it disannul; the faith of God His faithful promises made to Abraham and his seed, especially of sending the Messiah, and of effecting our redemption by him? Shall it destroy his fidelity to his promises, and prevent his fulfilling them to them that do believe? God, having promised to give to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and to be their God, the Jews affirmed that if they were cast off from being his people, and driven out of Canaan for not believing on Jesus, the faithfulness of God in performing his promises would be destroyed. Probably the apostles, in their discourses to the Jews, had, if not expressly affirmed, yet obscurely intimated, that for crucifying Jesus they would be punished in that manner. God forbid That we should insinuate any thing that can be justly considered as derogatory to Gods faithfulness: yea, let God be true Let the blessed God be acknowledged true to his covenant and his promises, though every man should be esteemed a liar, and unfit to have any confidence reposed in him; or, though every Jew should disbelieve, and be cast off on that account. To understand this more fully, we must recollect, that the performance of the promises to the natural seed of Abraham, is, in the original covenant, tacitly made to depend on their faith and obedience, Gen 18:19, and that it is explicitly made to depend on that condition in the renewal of the covenant, Deu 28:1-14. Besides, on that occasion, God expressly threatened to expel the natural seed from Canaan, and scatter them among the heathen, if they became unbelieving and disobedient, Lev 26:33; Deu 28:64. The rejection, therefore, and expulsion of the Jews from Canaan, for their unbelief, being a fulfilling of the threatenings of the covenant, established the faithfulness of God, instead of destroying it. As it is written, Psa 51:4, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings in thy words; and mightest overcome Be pronounced holy and just, and clear of all imputation of unrighteousness; when thou art judged When any presume insolently to arraign the equity of thy conduct, or, when thy proceedings are narrowly examined by right reason. The original expression, however, , it seems, should rather be rendered, when thou judgest, a translation agreeable to the place whence the quotation is made. Gods words referred to, in which David justified God, or acknowledged him to be just, are those threatenings which Nathan, by Gods order, denounced against him, on account of his crimes of adultery and murder, 2Sa 12:9-12. And God judged, or punished David, when he executed these threatenings on him and his posterity; and David acknowledged God to be just, or clear, in doing this, by receiving the deserved punishment in humility, resignation, and meekness. And the apostle seems to have quoted Davids confession, that Gods punishing him in the manner threatened by Nathan, was no breach of the promises he had made to him and his posterity, because it showed the Jews that Gods promises, like his threatenings, were all conditional, and that, consistently with his promises to Abraham and to his seed, God might reject the Israelites, and drive them out of Canaan, they having forfeited their right to be accounted the seed of Abraham, the father of the faithful, by their infidelity; and the Gentiles, by imitating his faith, being now received for Gods children.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 3, 4. For what shall we say? If some did not believe, shall their unbelief make void the faithfulness of God? Let it not be: yea, let God be found true, and every man a liar; as it is written: That Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou comest into judgment.

Here again Paul is not introducing any opponent; the objection which he states springs logically from the fact he has just affirmed.

It would be possible to put the point of interrogation after the word , some: For what are we to think, if some did not believe? But we think it preferable to put the point after , for: For what is the fact? and to connect the proposition: If some did not believe, with the following question (see the translation). Paul likes these short questions in the course of discussion: for what? but what? fitted as they are to rouse attention. If he here uses the particle for instead of but, it is because he wishes from the first to represent the objection as no longer subsisting, but already resolved.

What is the unbelief of the Jews which the apostle has here in view? According to some, Philippi for example, it is their old unbelief in respect of the ancient revelation. But the aorist , did not believe, refers to a particular historical fact rather than a permanent state of things, such as Jewish unbelief had been under the old covenant. Besides, the faithfulness of God toward Israel, when formerly unbelieving and disobedient, was a fact which could not be called in question, since God by sending them the Messiah had nevertheless fulfilled all His promises to them in a way so striking. Finally, the future will it make void? does not suit this sense; Paul would rather have said: did it make void? The subject in question, therefore, is a positive fact, and one which has just come to pass, and it is in relation to the consequences of this fact that the question of God’s faithfulness arises. What is this fact? We find it, with the majority of commentators in Israel’s rejection of Jesus, its Messiah; and we might even add: in the persevering rejection of apostolic preaching. The hostile attitude of Israel in relation to the gospel was now a decided matter.

The pronoun , some, may seem rather weak to denote the mass of the people who had rejected the Messiah; but this pronoun denotes a part of the whole irrespectively of the proportion. In chap. Rom 11:17, the unbelieving Jews are called some of the branches; in Heb 3:16, the whole people, Caleb and Joshua only excepted, are described by this same pronoun; comp. 1Co 10:7. The phrase of Plato is also cited: . Morison rightly says: Many are only some, when they are not the whole.

Questions introduced by a always imply an answer more or less negative; so it is in this case: This unbelief will not, however, make void…? Answer understood: Certainly not. Hence the for at the beginning of the verse, which referred to this foreseen negative answer.

The verb , which we have translated by make void, signifies literally: to deprive of action, or efficacy; and the phrase , in contrast to , unbelief, can only designate the faithfulness of God Himself, in a manner His good faith. This perfection consists in the harmony between God’s words and deeds, or between His past acts and His future conduct; it is his adherence to order in the line of conduct followed by Him. The question thus signifies: Can Jewish unbelief in regard to the Messiah invalidate God’s faithfulness to His people? The question might be asked in this sense: If the Jews have not taken advantage of the salvation which the Messiah brought to them, will it follow that God has not really granted them all He had promised? Will any one be able to accuse Him of having failed in His promises? The sense may also be: Will He not remain faithful to His word in the future, even though after such an act on their part He should reject them? For, in fine, His word does not contain promises only, but threatenings; comp. 2Ti 2:13 : If we believe not, He abideth faithful (by punishing unbelief, as He has said).

The first of these meanings does not agree naturally with the future , will make void, which points us not to the past, but to the future. The second might find some countenance in Rom 3:4, where the example of David’s sin and punishment is referred to, as well as in the term righteousness (taken in the sense of retributive justice) and in the term wrath, Rom 3:5. Yet the very severe meaning which in this case must be given to the phrase God’s faithfulness, would not be sufficiently indicated. We are led to another and more natural meaning: From the fact that Israel has rejected the Messianic salvation, does it follow that God will not fulfil all his promises to them in the future? By no means; His faithfulness will find a means in the very unbelief of His people of magnifying itself. The apostle has before him the perspective, which he will follow to its termination in chap. 11, that of the final salvation of the Jews, after their partial and temporary rejection shall have been instrumental in the salvation of the Gentiles.

The negative answer to this question, as we have seen, was already anticipated by the interrogative . When expressing it (Rom 3:4), the apostle enhances the simple negative. He exclaims: Let that not be (the faithfulness of God made void)! And to this forcible negation he adds the counter affirmation: May the contrary be what shall happen: truth, nothing but truth, on God’s side! All the lying, if there is any, on man’s side!

There is an antithesis between , that be far removed (the chalilah of the Hebrews), and the , but let this come to pass! The imperative , may be or it become, is usually understood in the sense: May God be recognized as true…! But the term , to become, refers more naturally to the fact in itself than to the recognition of it by man. The veracity of God becomes, is revealed more and more in history by the new effects it produces. But this growing realization of the true God runs parallel with another realization, that of human falsehood, which more and more displays man’s perversity. Falsehood denotes in Scripture that inward bad faith wherewith the human heart resists known and understood moral good. The apostle seems to allude to the words of Psa 116:11 : I said in my haste: All men are liars. Only what the Psalmist uttered with a feeling of bitterness, arising from painful personal experiences, Paul affirms with a feeling of composure and profound humiliation in view of the sin of his people. He says even all men and not only all Israelites; all men rather than God. If the principle of falsehood is realized in history, let all that bears the name of man be found capable of falseness, rather than that a tittle of this pollution should attach to the divine character. For the idea of faithfulness (Rom 3:3) there is substituted that of veracity, as for the idea of unbelief that of falsehood. In both cases the second is wider than the first, and includes it.

The conflict between the promises of God and His veracity, raised by the present fact of Israel’s unbelief, must issue in the glory of the divine faithfulness. This necessary result is expressed by the apostle by means of a saying of David, uttered on the occasion of one of his gravest infidelities, Psa 51:6 : That according as it is written… Alarm has been taken at the that; it has been sought to make it a simple so that (Osterv., Oltram.), as if what was spoken of were an effect, not an end. The wish was to avoid making David say he had sinned in order that God might be glorified. It cannot really be supposed that David means to ascribe to God responsibility for his trespass in any degree whatever, and that in a passage where he expressly affirms that the purity of the divine character must appear with new brightness on occasion of it. Hengstenberg and after him Philippi, have recourse to the distinction between the sinful will of David, which belongs wholly to him, and the form in which his sin was outwardly realized, a form which falls under the direction of Providence. But this distinction, which the theologian can make, could not present itself to the mind of David at the time, and in the disposition in which he composed his psalm. To explain the that, we have simply to take into account the manner in which David expresses himself in the foregoing words. He had said not only: I have sinned, but: I have sinned against Thee; not only: I have done the evil, but: I have done that which is displeasing in Thy sight. It is with the two ideas against Thee and what is displeasing in Thy sight, which aggravate the confession: I have sinned, that the that is connected. David means: I was clear as to what I was doing; Thou hadst not left me ignorant that when sinning I was sinning against Thy person, which is outraged by such misdeeds, and that I was doing what Thou hatestthat if, in spite of this knowledge, I nevertheless did it, Thou mightest be pure in the matter, and that the guiltiness might belong to me only. This idea of the knowledge of the divine will possessed by David, is that which is anew forcibly expressed in Rom 3:6 : Thou didst teach me wisdom in the hidden part. God had instructed and warned David that if he sinned, he sinned, he might be the only guilty one, and might not be able to accuse God. The that has therefore nearly the same meaning as the: to the end they might be without excuse, Rom 1:20. We thus recognize the analogy of situation between David and Israel, which leads the apostle to quote these words here. Israel, the depositary of the divine oracles, had been faithfully instructed and warned, that if later, in spite of these exceptional revelations, giving themselves up to the falsehood (voluntary blindness) of their own hearts, they came to miss recognizing the Messiah, they should not be able to accuse God for their rejection, but should be declared, to the honor of the divine holiness, the one party guilty of the catastrophe which might follow.

The words: that Thou mayest be justified in or by Thy words, signify: that Thou mayest be acknowledged righteous, both in respect of the warnings which Thou hast given, and in the sentences which Thou wilt pronounce (on David by the mouth of Nathan, on Israel by their rejection). In the Hebrew, the second proposition refers exclusively to those sentences which God pronounces; for it said: and that Thou mayest be found pure when Thou judgest. But the LXX. have translated: that Thou mayest be victor (gain Thy case) when Thou art judged, or: when Thou hast a case at law. It is probably this last meaning to which the apostle adapts his words, giving the verb the middle sense, which it has in so many passages; for example, Mat 5:40; 1Co 6:1; 1Co 6:6 : that Thou mayest gain Thy case if Thou hast one to plead. Paul has obviously in view the accusation against God’s faithfulness which might be raised from the fact of the unbelief and rejection of the chosen people.

But this very thought, that the veracity of God will come forth magnified from Israel’s unbelief, raises a new objection, the examination of which forms the third phase of this discussion.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

3. For what if some did disbelieve? Whether shall their unbelief make void the faith of God?

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

3:3 For what if some did not {c} believe? shall their unbelief make the {d} faith of God without effect?

(c) Break the covenant.

(d) The faith that God gave.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul’s second question was this. God will not forsake His promises to bless the nation since some of the Israelites proved unfaithful, will He? The objection Paul voiced calls attention to the promises God had given Israel in the Old Testament covenants. These too constituted an advantage for the Jews.

By referring to the unbelief of the Jews (Rom 3:3) Paul was looking at the root of their unfaithfulness to God. Of the generation that received the law at Sinai, for example, only two adults proved faithful, Caleb and Joshua. Still God brought the whole nation into Canaan as He had promised, though the unbelieving generation died in the wilderness.

Paul agreed. God would remain "true" (true to His word, reliable, trustworthy) to bless Israel as He had promised (Rom 3:4). God would even be faithful if everyone else proved unfaithful, not just if some proved unfaithful. Paul cited David’s testimony to God’s faithfulness after David’s own unfaithfulness as historic, biblical support.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)