Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 3:5
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I (speak as a man)
5. unrighteousness righteousness ] General terms, but implying the special forms of unbelief and fidelity. Man’s mistrust is awfully unjust to God; God’s fidelity to His promise is just to Himself and His holiness. See below on Rom 3:21 for the exceptional meaning here of “ the Righteousness of God [33] .”
[33] It is possible, however, that the meaning assigned to the phrase in note on Rom 1:17, may be the meaning even here: q.d., “What if our sin should illustrate (by contrast or otherwise) God’s Way of Acceptance?”
Is God unrighteous, &c.?] This question (the Opponent’s) is a serious grammatical difficulty in the Gr. The interrogative particle is that which regularly expects the answer “ No.” But the turn of this argument suggests a question ( from the Opponent) expecting “ Yes.” (The above use of the particle in question is not quite invariable in Gr., but it holds in all other cases in St Paul.) To us it seems that the solution is as follows: The Apostle gives the Opponent’s question, but jealousy for God’s honour compels him to modify it by his own intense sense of the Divine righteousness. The Opponent demands the answer “ Yes; ” St Paul is forced to make him, grammatically, demand the answer “ No.” Instead of his would-be “ Is not God unrighteous, &c.?” it thus stands, “ Is God unrighteous, &c.?” in which at most the question is left, verbally, open.
taketh vengeance ] Lit. inflicteth the wrath; i.e. the wrath merited by the special sin; the wrath which had fallen on Israel.
I speak as a man ] i.e. “on merely human principles, from mere man’s point of view.” This serious questioning about right and wrong in the Eternal and His acts is, in St Paul’s view, “speaking as man.” In the light of the Holy Spirit’s teaching it is impossible, unless (as here) by way of a mere argumentative formula.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But if our unrighteousness – If our sin. The particular sin which had been specified Rom 3:3 was unbelief. But the apostle here gives the objection a general form. This is to be regarded as an objection which a Jew might make. The force of it is this:
- It had been conceded that some had not believed; that is, had sinned.
(2)But God was true to his promises. Notwithstanding their sin, Gods character was the same. Nay,
- In the very midst of sin, and as one of the results of it, the character of God, as a just Being, shone out illustriously. The question then was,
- If his glory resulted from it; if the effect of all was to show that his character was pure; how could he punish that sin from which his own glory resulted? And this is a question which is often asked by sinners.
Commend – Recommend; show forth; render illustrious.
The righteousness of God – His just and holy character. This was the effect on Davids mind, that he saw more clearly the justice of God in his threatenings against sin, in consequence of his own transgression. And if this effect followed, if honor was thus done to God, the question was, how he could consistently punish what tended to promote his own glory?
What shall we say? – What follows? or, what is the inference? This is a mode of speech as if the objector hesitated about expressing an inference which would seem to follow, but which was horrible in its character.
Is God unrighteous? – The meaning of this would be better expressed thus: Is not God unrighteous in punishing? Does it not follow that if God is honored by sin, that it would be wrong for him to inflict punishment?
Who taketh vengeance – The meaning of this is simply, who inflicts punishment. The idea of vengeance is not necessarily in the original orgen. It is commonly rendered wrath, but it often means simply punishment, without any reference to the state of the mind of him who inflicts it, Mat 3:7; Luk 3:7; Luk 21:23; Joh 3:36. Notes, Rom 1:18; Rom 4:15.
I speak as a man – I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind. It does not mean that the language was such as wicked people were accustomed to use; but that the objector expressed a sentiment which to human view would seem to follow from what had been said. This I regard as the language of an objector. It implies a degree of reverence for the character of God, and a seeming unwillingness to state an objection which seemed to be dishonorable to God, but which nevertheless pressed itself so strong on the mind as to appear irresistible. No way of stating the objection could have been more artful or impressive.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Rom 3:5-8
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say?
Mans sin and Gods righteousness
1. Our unrighteousness may possibly commend the righteousness of God.
2. This result is involuntary, not meritorious.
3. Hence to suppose that sin is less punishable because good follows is a grievous error.
4. To persist in sin that good may come, is positively blasphemous and wicked.
5. Therefore God will righteously punish those who do so. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Mans sin and Gods righteousness
1. Mans sin has occasioned the displays of Gods righteousness.
2. Does not thereby lose its enormity.
3. Must, if not repented of, be avenged.
4. Otherwise all righteous judgment must cease. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Is God unrighteous that taketh vengeance? (text, and Gen 18:25).—
Gods attitude towards sin
1. God makes the wickedness and unbelief of men subservient to His glory.
2. Holds them responsible for their sins, notwithstanding the result.
3. Teaches that the morality of an action depends not upon the consequences of it, but upon its agreement or disagreement with His law.
4. Condemns the slanderous importation that the gospel sanctions the principle of doing evil that good may come. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Gods attitude towards sin
He–
1. Overrules it;
2. Judges it;
3. Utterly condemns it. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The hearts rest in the righteousness of God
Thousands of years part those two questions, yet in substance they are the same. The first occurs in a tender, sublime intercession; the second in a hard, fiery argumentation. Note–
I. That both refer to the retributive providence of God as declared in particular and decisive acts. Both acts were determined by the moral conditions of men, though their effects operated in different spheres. One was temporal, the other a spiritual judgment.
1. Let us try and get their position. Think of Abraham when God divulged to him tits appalling purpose. Think of Paul writing with the full knowledge that God had placed Israel under a ban. In different ways these two men were bidden look into the treasure house of Divine wrath. They had to stand on the shadowed side of the providence of God. And the hand of Him they knew as love placed them there.
2. Both felt the moral pressure upon their reason and conscience, and were compelled to ask, Is it right for God to do this? One tried to turn judgment aside, so forcibly did the difficulty press itself home. Pauls perplexities were more intricate, and his endeavour to extricate his reason and conscience is one great wrestling with the Spirit of Truth.
3. Now, looking into these difficulties of Abraham and Paul, do we not recognise our own? Our thoughts and feeling form themselves, almost without our will, into the old interrogation, Wilt Thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Are we not ready to expostulate, That be far from Thee to do after this manner? In how many sweeping calamities the righteous are slain with the wicked. Earthquake, storm, flood, fire, make no elections; they take any and all alike. In a commercial crisis often some of the best men are among the wreckage, ignominiously huddled with the rogues. Where is the answer to this? I do not find one in the Old Testament narrative. There is one streak of light. Lot was saved. Yet, in view of the after history, one is ready to ask, Why? And if we take Pauls questions of sin, responsibility, and punishment, our bafflings are, if anything, increased. The impenetrable facts are with us. The fact of sin: what theologians call original sin, and men of science heredity. Millions are born castaways, come into the world under wrath. What about their responsibility? What about their destiny?
II. The ultimate truth upon which those who put them relied for a solution. God did not leave them without answer; nor has He left us without one. Their answer is ours, for the Bible is for all time. We shall find our answer in the questions themselves; for they contain a truth quite equal to the removal of doubts, though not of difficulties.
1. Abraham and Paul grasped the eternal righteousness of God. That became a formulated conception of Gods character. Reason and conscience built on it, and could not he shaken. It is for us to make that our own. Before we pass judgment, or seek to form a judgment on any section of human history, or any problem of human life and destiny, let us take fast hold of the manifested truth–God is righteous. That is larger than the statement–God does righteously. It means more than He does no wrong things. It means, He cannot do a wrong thing. And then, moreover, His wisdom is such that He cannot commit a blunder.
2. These questions not only express a truth of Gods character, but also the moral requisition of the creature consciousness. Reason and conscience both demand that the Judge of all the earth shall be righteous. And God has not so constituted man that he may mock Him. And notice in connection with this that The Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? Does not that look as if God craved the sympathy and approval of man? He would not have those intuitive demands which He has put into souls violated by deeds of His. The Creator would be justified in the eyes of His creature. God does not rebuke the demand that He shall do right. And when we fully apprehend, as did these men, that God is righteous, every special act of His will be tried by that conclusion. The thorniest questions that can ever arise must have their answers in the righteousness of God.
III. The profound moral acquiescence in the Divine will which the texts reveal. The harassed reason of patriarch and apostle found rest in the eternal righteousness of God.
1. We must always start there, and take it as our lamp to light our feet along winding and perilous paths, and seldom shall we stumble or lose our way. It is not a truth for reflection alone, but for practical guidance, and should command our acquiescence in the Divine will.
2. Not that we are to cease inquiry. Only we should question with faith in our hearts; especially the faith that God is righteous.
3. The acquiescence spoken of does not mean unconcern as to the fate of men. It does not mean indifference to sin and sorrow, and suffering and destiny. Abraham cared. How he pleaded! Clearly we are now amid the overwhelming mysteries of moral government. We see that men may become so bad that nothing is left, even for God, but a determining stroke of wrath. But we must not be content to leave men to their doom. There must be no willingness that they should perish. Gods will is that they should be saved. Paul said, I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart concerning reprobated Israel. (W. Hubbard.)
God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?—
Gods righteousness and future judgment
Gods righteousness–
I. Is the basis of the hope of future judgment. Things are not right now if viewed from a strictly temporal standpoint; for the good often get the worst of it, and the bad the best of it. The hope that these inequalities will be adjusted at the Judgment has been the comfort and mainstay of Gods saints under both dispensations.
II. Necessitates this judgment.
1. If the worlds affairs are administered by a Righteous Governor, then the things that are now manifestly wrong must at some period be put right, and the date assigned by the Righteous Governor of the world is the Day of Judgment.
2. Having assigned that date, Gods righteousness pledged Him to keep it. God is, so to speak, committed to it, and He is not the son of man that He should repent.
III. Will govern its decisions. Men will be judged equitably. Judicial decisions are now often inequitable–because some legal technicality stands in the way; or because all the facts are not forthcoming, or some of them are not placed in their true light; or because the eloquence of the advocate, or something about the accused, influences the jury. But then the awards will be according to the merits of the case, all the circumstances of which will be naked and open. Conclusion: We may take comfort from this doctrine–
1. Amid all the perplexities of the present. We do not estimate things by their momentary appearance, nor a man by a solitary action. We must therefore estimate God and His procedure comprehensively. He has all eternity to work in, and when we take the larger view we shall acknowledge that the Judge of all the earth will do right.
2. Amid all the perplexities concerning the future. Whatever becomes of the wicked the Judge of all the earth will do right. (J. W. Burn.)
Justice and judgment
The following story is told of Judge Gray, now in the United States Supreme Court:–A man was brought before him who was justly charged with being an offender of the meanest sort. Through some technicality the judge was obliged honourably to discharge him, but as he did so he chose the time to say what he thought of the matter. I believe you guilty, he said, and would wish to condemn you severely, but through a petty technicality I am obliged to discharge you. I know you are guilty, and so do you; and I wish you to remember that you will some day pass before a better and a wiser Judge, when you will be dealt with according to justice, and not according to law.
The standard of Gods justice
In the reign of King Edward the First there was much abuse in the traffic of all sorts of drapery, much wrong done betwixt man and man by reason of the diversity of their measures, every man measuring his cloth by his own yard, which the king perceiving, being a goodly proper man, took a long stick in his hand, and having taken the length of his own arm, made proclamation through the kingdom, that ever after the length of that stick should be the measure to measure by, and no other. Thus Gods justice is nothing else but a conformity to His being, the pleasure of His wilt; so that the counsel of His will is the standard of His justice, whereunto all men should regulate themselves as well in commutative as distributive justice, and so much the more righteous than his neighbour shall every man appear, by how much he is proximate in this rule, and less righteous as he is the more remote. (J. Spencer.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 5. JEW. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God] May we not suppose that our unrighteousness may serve to commend and illustrate the mercy of God in keeping and fulfilling to us the promise which he made to our forefathers? The more wicked we are, the more his faithfulness to his ancient promise is to be admired. And if so, would not God appear unjust in taking vengeance and casting us off?
I speak as a man] I feel for the situation both of myself and my countrymen, and it is natural for one to speak as I do.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God; an anticipation of another objection, which might be lnade upon the preceding words: that if the faithfulness of God, in keeping his promises, doth appear in and notwithstanding the unfaithfulness of men, then we gather thus much, that the fidelity of God is rendered a great deal more commendable by the perfidiousness of man.
What shall we say? Thus we object, or this will be the inconvenience.
Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? i.e. then God is unjust in punishing the Jews, or any other wicked men, for that which tends to his own glory, and the commendations of his veracity.
I speak as a man; this is the language of carnal men, and such blasphemy they speak; I recite the objection of some men, and speak after their carnal manner.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5, 6. But if, c.Anotherobjection: “It would appear, then, that the more faithless weare, so much the more illustrious will the fidelity of God appear andin that case, for Him to take vengeance on us for our unfaithfulnesswould be (to speak as men profanely do) unrighteousness in God.”
Answer:
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,…. Hence it appears, that the unrighteousness of men commends the righteousness, or faithfulness of God; and yet all unrighteousness is sin; the wrath of God is revealed against it; and would exclude from heaven, were it not for pardon through the blood of Christ; and besides, the one is contrary to the other, and of itself, of its own nature, cannot influence and affect the other: wherefore this can only be understood of the manifestation and illustration of, the righteousness of God by it; which is covered and commended, in punishing the unrighteousness of men; in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for sin; and in fulfilling his promises, notwithstanding the failings of his people, of which the case of David is a pregnant proof; just as the love of God is illustrated and commended, by the consideration of the sins of men, for whom Christ died, and his grace and mercy in the conversion of them: but if this be true,
what shall we say? shall we allow the following question to be put? this answers to , “what is there to say”, or “to be said?” a way of speaking, often used by the Talmudists n:
is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? if the premises are true, this is a just consequence of them; whereas God does take vengeance on men for their unrighteousness, both here and hereafter, it must be a piece of unrighteousness in him so to do; since that for which he takes vengeance on them commends his own righteousness; but that you may know as well by what follows, that this is not an inference of his own, but another’s, he adds,
I speak as a man; , “according to the language of the children of men”, a phrase often used by the Jewish doctors o. The apostle did not speak the sentiments of his own mind, he represented another man, and spoke in the language of an adversary.
n T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 4. 1. & passim. o T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 11. 1. & passim.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
What shall we say? ( ?). Rhetorical question, common with Paul as he surveys the argument.
Commendeth (). This common verb , to send together, occurs in the N.T. in two senses, either to introduce, to commend (2Cor 3:1; 2Cor 4:2) or to prove, to establish (2Cor 7:11; Gal 2:18; Rom 5:8). Either makes good sense here.
Who visiteth the wrath ( ). “Who brings on the wrath,” “the inflicter of the anger” (Vaughan).
I speak as a man ( ). See Ga 3:15 for same phrase. As if to say, “pardon me for this line of argument.” Tholuck says that the rabbis often used and . Paul had not forgotten his rabbinical training.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Commend [] . Only twice outside of Paul ‘s writings, Luk 9:32; 2Pe 3:5, both in the physical sense. Lit., to place together. Hence of setting one person with another by way of introducing or presenting him, and hence to commend. Also to put together with a vein of showing, proving, or establishing. Expositors render here differently : commend, establish, prove. Commend is the prevailing sense in the New Testament, though in some instances the two ideas blend, as Rom 5:8; 2Co 7:11; Gal 2:18. See Rom 16:1; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 6:4; 2Co 10:18.
Who taketh vengeance [ ] . Rev., much better, who visiteth with wrath. Lit., bringeth the anger to bear. The force of the article it is difficult to render. It may be the wrath, definitely conceived as judicial, or, more probably, as in Mt 3:7, referring to something recognized – the wrath to come, the well – understood need of unrighteousness. See on Rom 12:19.
As a man [ ] . Rev., after the manner of men; i e., I use a mode of speech drawn from human affairs. The phrase is thrown in apologetically, under a sense that the mode of speech is unworthy of the subject. Morison aptly paraphrases : “When I ask the question, ‘Is God unjust who inflicteth wrath ?’ I am deeply conscious that I am using language which is intrinsically improper when applied to God. But in condescension to human weakness I transfer to Him language which it is customary for men to employ when referring to human relationships.” Compare 1Co 9:8; Rom 6:19.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But if our unrighteousness,” (ei de he adikia hemon) “Now if our unrighteousness;- of Jew and Gentile (of all men), verifies or points up our depravity, our unholiness, 1Ki 8:46; Psa 58:3; Rom 3:23.
2) “Commend the righteousness of God,” (theou dikaiosune sunistesin) “Commends’ (the) righteousness of God;” or makes the righteousness of God to appear the more “commendable;” in condemning and judging sin, Rom 5:8; Rom 5:20-21.
3) “What shall we say?” (ti eroumen) “What shall we say,” or what does it mean? Our admitted sins bear witness that God is holy and we need pardon, Isa 55:6-7.
4) “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” (me adikos ho theos ho epipheron ten orgen) “God (is) not unrighteous, the one inflicting wrath, (is he)? – the one visiting wrath upon the ungodly and wicked, is he? Psa 7:11-13; Rom 1:18. If so, how could he (in righteousness) judge the World? Rom 2:16; Rom 12:19.
5) 0 speak as a man” (kata anthropon lego) “I talk or speak according to or after the manner of men;” This is orderly, consistent, or logical reasoning, isn’t it? Paul continued. While he spoke as a man he also spoke as an apostle, inspired in what he said, Rom 1:1; Rom 6:19; Gal 3:15.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5 But if our unrighteousness, etc. Though this is a digression from the main subject, it was yet necessary for the Apostle to introduce it, lest he should seem to give to the ill-disposed an occasion to speak evil, which he knew would be readily laid hold on by them. For since they were watching for every opportunity to defame the gospel, they had, in the testimony of David, what they might have taken for the purpose of founding a calumny, — “If God seeks nothing else, but to be glorified by men, why does he punish them, when they offend, since by offending they glorify him? Without cause then surely is he offended, if he derives the reason of his displeasure from that by which he is glorified.” There is, indeed, no doubt, but that this was an ordinary, and everywhere a common calumny, as it will presently appear. Hence Paul could not have covertly passed it by; but that no one should think that he expressed the sentiments of his own mind, he premises that he assumes the person of the ungodly; and at the same time, he sharply, touches, by a single expression, on human reason; whose work, as he intimates, is ever to bark against the wisdom of God; for he says not, “according to the ungodly,” but “according to man,” or as man. And thus indeed it is, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the flesh: and at the same tine it possesses so much audacity, that it fears not to oppose them and insolently to assail what it cannot comprehend. We are hence reminded, that if we desire to become capable of understanding them, we must especially labor to become freed from our own reason, ( proprio sensu ) and to give up ourselves, and unreservedly to submit to his word. — The word wrath, taken here for judgment, refers to punishment; as though he said, “Is God unjust, who punishes those sins which set forth his righteousness?”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) But if our unrighteousness.A new and profound question suggests itself to the mind of the Apostle, and his keen intellect will not let it go: If the sin (here the unbelief) of man only tends to vindicate (commends or establishes) the righteousness of God, why should that sin be punished? The mere raising of such a question requires an apology; it is only as a man might speak about man that he dares to utter such a thought. That, too, is an impossible objection, for if it held good there could not be any judgment. No sin would be punishable, for all sin would serve to emphasise the strict veracity of God in His denunciations of it, and therefore would ultimately conduce to His glory. It would thus cease to be sinful, and there would be nothing to hinder us from adopting the principle that is so calumniously attributed to usthat it is lawful to do evil that good may come. A calumny it is, and any such principle with all that appertains to iti.e., with the whole of the preceding argument,is justly condemned.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(d.) Nor does God’s glory derived from overruling man’s sin excuse the Jewish any more than the Gentile sinner, Rom 3:5-8 .
5. Commend the righteousness of God The Jew now makes a bold turn. He admits himself the sinner and God the righteous. But how excellent a thing has his sin accomplished! It has set God’s rectitude in a clearer light! How righteous, then, is the Jew whose very sins glorify God!
What shall we say? How can we condemn the Jew? The apostle answers this question by retorting another. God does nevertheless take vengeance; does he so unrighteously? There is, then, a fair issue between God and the Jew. Is God unrighteous? Not only does St. Paul over and over raise the question whether there is unrighteousness with God, but the whole book of Romans is an argument to show that God’s course with the Jews is the right one; under the assumption that there are other courses which it would be wrong for God to pursue, and which he does not pursue just because they are wrong. That is, a course is not right because God pursues it, but God pursues it because it is right. The righteousness of God appears in this, that from eternity to eternity he does, with a most divine freedom, choose and determine not for the wrong, but for the right, the holy, and the best. (See our work on “The Will,” page 316.) And the apostle assumes this fundamental rightness in God as a first principle in no way to be contradicted. The predestinarian must not, therefore, grimly argue, “God has a right to do what he pleases with his creatures, even decree their sin and then damn them for it.” God has, indeed, a right to do what he pleases with his creatures, just because he, in fact, pleases to do perfectly right. Were there a God over the universe who pleased to do wrong, such a God would have no right to do as he pleases. But to say that the creature cannot be imagined to receive a treatment which would be unjust even from its Creator reverses all true idea of justice; and in fact by saying that injustice would be justice annihilates the very idea of justice.
We are bound to assume, with the apostle, that such a course must not be attributed to God, because it would be infinitely wrong, and God is infinitely right.
Speak as a man In entertaining the question of the divine rectitude, I do for a moment speak of God as men speak of each other. The sentence is an apologetic parenthesis for the apparent irreverence.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visits with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.)
OK, says the theoretical questioner, if that is so it means that our unrighteousness is commending the righteousness of God. And that being so surely it is unrighteous of God to visit us with wrath. The idea that this suggestion could be made so appals Paul that he immediately assures his readers that he is speaking ‘after the manner of men’. He does not want them to think that he has any doubts on the matter.
We can see here the subtlety of Jewish thinking. They considered that by their unrighteousness Jews were actually highlighting the righteousness of God, as He forgave them their sins and received them into eternal life regardless of their behaviour (something already refuted in chapter 2). Thus why should God be wrath with them? One thing that they overlooked here was that God’s wrath was not just His reaction to them as such. It was His reaction to sin because of His very nature. He was of such a nature that He would not overlook sin in anyone.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
God vindicated in every respect:
v. 5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man.)
v. 6. God forbid! For then how shall God judge the world?
v. 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?
v. 8. And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? Whose damnation is just. A new thought is here introduced by the apostle. For if the argument of verses 3 and 4 is correct, then the unbelief of the Jews actually serves as a foil to set off the faithfulness of God; it makes His truth all the more conspicuous; it actually redounds to His glory: why, then, should they still be exposed to judgment and condemnation? If our unrighteousness, our wickedness, our condition of faithlessness and proneness to lying, actually demonstrates, sets forth, the righteousness, the rectitude, the moral excellence of God, what shall we say, what follows, what conclusion may we draw? A Jew might feel that, with God’s fidelity pledged to his salvation, and his wickedness setting forth God’s rectitude, surely his condition could not be such as to place him in danger of eternal condemnation. St. Paul states such an argument: Can it be? Dare we assume or infer that God is unjust in taking vengeance? Since the entire situation so obviously results in an advantage on the part of God, then, if one wants to argue from a purely human standpoint, does it not seem that God, in inflicting punishment, is acting in a vengeful, spiteful way? But the apostle again rejects the very suggestion with an emphatic: Indeed not! By no means! For if the implication is true that God would resort to such petty forms of vengeance and thereby become unrighteous, how, then, will He judge the world? If He Himself were unrighteous, He surely could not execute His wrath on the unrighteousness of men, Gen 18:25. If God were actually unjust, it would be out of the question for Him to pass sentence upon the world.
Paul now further amplifies and confirms the answer given to the Jews in v. 6, by placing his own person into the foreground: For if the truth of God through my lie has abounded to His glorification, why should I then still be judged as sinner? He argues as a member of the human family might on the Day of Judgment. If the fact that the adherence of God to His promises is brought out so strongly by the falseness and wickedness of man, if it has made the glory of God the more conspicuous, why should man be judged and condemned as a sinner? God ought to be satisfied with the fact that man’s sin increases His own glory and honor. The answer of Paul is given in the form of his question. The fact that God still condemns is due to the guilt and the culpability of sin, that He, who is and remains the Holy and Just One, cannot do otherwise than pass sentence of condemnation upon the transgression of the sinner, even though this redounds to His honor and glory. The righteousness of God cannot possibly suffer to have him that has done evil go unpunished.
This thought is brought out still more strongly in v. 8. If the argument of the Jews were valid, then not only may every sinner claim exemption, but it would follow that one might freely do evil, with the specious plea that good would come from it: Why is not the situation so as we are being slandered and as some report that we say, Let us do the evil in order that the good may come? If the principle brought out in the objection were correct, then this conclusion would be perfectly logical and acceptable. Every further sin enhances the glory of God; therefore let us sin, by all means. Such proposals were slanderously ascribed to the Christians in those days, just as they are reported today. The conclusion drawn by the unbelievers from the doctrine of justification is that the Christians deliberately performed wicked deeds in order that the grace of God, in the forgiveness of sins, might stand out all the more gloriously. But such theory and practice is not found among the Christians, as St. Paul here emphasizes, both by the negative interrogatory particle and by the words: Whose condemnation is altogether just. People that persist in misunderstanding justification by grace through faith, as taught in Scriptures, will bring upon themselves a just punishment. Thus also this last statement of the apostle is a vindication of divine righteousness and justice, and a refutation of the false conclusion that God is unjust in condemning the sinners. Note: The Christians to this day are under suspicion on account of the doctrine of justification. The false conclusion is cast into their teeth: The worse we are, the better; for the more wicked we are, the more conspicuous will be the mercy of God in our pardon. But Christians, in spite of this slander, are fully conscious of the guilt and culpability of sin, of the fact that God’s righteous wrath will strike all transgressors, but above all of the fact that every sin is a cause of grief to the Holy Spirit of God and to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Rom 3:5. The righteousness of God St. Paul hereby intends God’s faithfulness in keeping his promise. This verse is the language of an unbelieving Jew, and therefore in his mouth God’s righteousness, or fidelity to his promise, has relation only to the nation of the Jews, and their being still continued the church and people of God.Who taketh vengeance, might be rendered, more agreeably to the original, who inflicteth wrath, or, “who is the inflicter of wrath, as you intimate.” See on chap. Rom 2:1 and on Rom 1:18. This expression evidently points at the rejection of the Jews, and therefore is closely connected with chap. 9: where the Apostle not only handles the same subject, but resumes these very questions or objections of the unbelieving Jew, and answers them at large; and as the rejection of the Jews stands here inserted in the midst of his argument relating to the justification of the Gentiles, it is manifestly connected with that argument, or with the Apostle’s doctrine of justification by faith. For after his discourse here, upon the rejection of the Jews, he immediately subjoins, Rom 3:9. What then? are we better than they?In answer to which, he proves to the end of the chapter that the Jews were not better than the Gentiles, seeing both stood in need of the grace or favour of God for their justification. Thus, in the Apostle’s discourse and argument, the rejection of the Jews stands in close connection with his doctrine of justification. But what connection or relation is there between the justification of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews?This will appear from what is said chap. Rom 9:30-31, and the note there. In short, the rejection of the Jews for their want of faith stands in direct opposition to the justification of the Gentiles by faith; therefore, if we have a true idea of the rejection of the Jews, we may thence collect a true idea of the justification of the Gentiles; but the rejection of the Jews is their being cast out of God’s church, and stripped of the privileges and blessings of God’s peculiar people; consequently the justification of the Gentiles, for which the Apostle pleads, chap. 3: and 4: is their being pardoned, and received to all the privileges and blessings of God’s peculiar people. See Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 3:5-6 . In Rom 3:3-4 it was declared that the unbelief of a part of the Jews would not make void the truthfulness of God, but that, on the contrary, the latter should be triumphantly justified. But how easily might this be misconstrued by a Jew of the common type as a pretext for his immorality: “the unrighteousness of man in fact brings out more clearly the righteousness of God, and therefore may not be righteously punished by God!” To preclude this misconception and false inference, which so abruptly run counter to his doctrine of universal human guilt, and to leave no pretext remaining (observe beforehand the ; in Rom 3:9 ), Paul, having in view such thoughts of an antagonist, proposes to himself and his readers the question: “ But if our unrighteousness show forth the righteousness of God, what shall we say (infer)? Is God then unrighteous, who inflicteth wrath? ” And he disposes of it in the first instance by the categorical answer (Rom 3:6 ): No, otherwise God could not be judge of the world . The assumption, that this question is occasioned really and seriously by what goes before, and called forth from the Apostle himself (Hofmann), is rendered untenable by the very addition .
] Quite general: our unrighteousness , abnormal moral condition. To this general category belongs also the , Rom 3:3 . Paul has regarded the possible Jewish misconception, the notion of which occasions his question, as a general , but for that reason all the more dangerous inference from Rom 3:3-4 , in which the words and are suggested by the passage from the Psalms in Rom 3:4 .
] is said certainly in the character of the in general , and stands in relation to the in Rom 3:4 . But as the whole context is directed against the Jews , and the application to these is intended in the general expressions, and indeed expressly made in Rom 3:19 , Paul speaks here also in such a way that the Jewish consciousness, from which, as himself a Jew, he speaks, lies at the bottom of the general form of his representation.
The protasis . is a concessum , which is in itself correct (Rom 3:4 ); but the inference , which the Jewish self-justification might draw from it, is rejected with horror. Observe in this protasis the emphatic juxtaposition ; and in the apodosis the accent which lies on and .
. ] proves God’s righteousness (comp Rom 5:8 ; 2Co 6:4 ; 2Co 7:11 ; Gal 2:18 ; Susann. 61; frequently in Polyb. Philo, etc.); makes it apparent beyond doubt, that God is without fault, and such as He must be. The contrast to requires . to be taken thus generally, and forbids its being explained of a particular attribute ( truth: Beza, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, and others; goodness: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Rosenmuller), as well as its being taken in the sense of Rom 1:17 (van Hengel).
The (3 Esr. 8:82) is used by Paul only in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom 4:1 , Rom 6:1 , Rom 7:7 , Rom 8:31 , Rom 9:14 ; Rom 9:30 ). Compare, however, generally on such questions arousing interest and enlivening the representation, Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. 1013, Dissen, a [748] Dem, de cor. p. 346 f.
. . ] This question [749] is so put that (as in Rom 3:3 ) a negative answer is expected, since Paul has floating before his mind an impious objection conceived of . See Hermann, a [750] Viger. p. 789, 810; Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 159; Baeumlein, p. 302 f. Hence: God is not unrighteous then, who dealeth wrath? This in opposition to Rckert and Philippi, who make the questioner expect an affirmative answer, which can never be the case. In those passages in Greek authors, where an affirmative reply notwithstanding follows, it invariably does so contrary to the expectation of the questioner; see Khner, II. 2, p. 1024. , prefixed with emphasis, is, on account of its relation to . . , to be understood in the strict judicial signification unrighteous , which is confirmed by Rom 3:6-7 . For examples of used to express the practical infliction of wrath or punishment see Raphel, Polyb. ; Kypke, II. p. 160. The article with the participle indicates the relation as well-known; and (Sin.* adds ) denotes the wrath definitely conceived of as judicial , inflicted at the judgment. Compare Ritschl, de ira Dei , p. 15.
] To preclude his being misunderstood, as if he were asking . . . [751] from his own enlightened Christian view, Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this according to a human standard (Bernhardy, p. 241), after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in accordance with mere human reason. Compare 1Co 9:8 ; Gal 3:15 ; Soph. Aj. 761: . “I say this just as an ordinary man, not under the influence of the divine Spirit, may well say it.” Respecting the expression ., which is capable according to the context of great variety of meaning, compare Fritzsche in loc [752] It is wrongly inferred from . that the question . . [753] was meant to receive an affirmative answer, because as a negative query it would not be . (see Philippi). But this view overlooks the fact that the whole thought, which is implied in the question calculated though it is for a negative reply, the thought of the unrighteousness of God in punishing can in fact only be put into expression ; in the higher Christian insight a conception so blasphemous and deserving of abhorrence can find neither place nor utterance. The apology however, involved in . , is applicable only to what goes before , not to what follows , to which Mehring, Th. Schott and Hofmann refer it. This is the more obvious, since what immediately follows is merely a repudiating , and the . . [754] , which assigns the ground for this repudiation, is by no means an idea outside the range of revelation, the application of which to a rational inference , and one too so plainly right, cannot transfer it to the lower sphere of the . .
Rom 3:6 . ] gives the ground of the ; for (if the God who inflicts wrath is unrighteous ) how will it be possible that He shall judge the world? The future is to be left in its purely future sense, since it refers to a future act taking place at any rate, as to which the only difficulty would be to see how it was to be accomplished , if, etc. On , for otherwise , see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 308. has the emphasis.
is to be taken, with most expositors, generally as meaning all mankind (compare Rom 3:19 ). To be judge of the world and yet, as . ., to be , is a contradiction of terms; the certainty that God is the former would become an impossibility if He were the latter. Compare Gen 18:25 . Koppe, Reiche, Schrader, Olshausen, and Jatho, following older authorities, take it only of the Gentile world (Rom 11:12 ; 1Co 6:2 ; 1Co 11:32 ): “In that case God could not punish even the Gentile world for its idolatry, since it is only in contrast therewith that the true worship of God appears in its full value” (Reiche) But, in this explanation, the very essential idea: “ since . appears ” has first of all to be imported , an expedient which, in presence of the simplicity and clearness of our view, cannot but seem arbitrary. Even the following proof, Rom 3:7 f., does not present a reference directly to the judgment of the Gentiles . The argument itself rests on the premiss that God can carry out the judgment of the world only as One who is righteous in His decreeing of wrath. The opposite would be impossible, not only subjectively, in God Himself (Th. Schott), but also objectively, as standing in contradiction to the notion of a world-judgment. See Rom 3:7 f. This proposition however is so perfectly certain to the consciousness of faith , out of which Paul asserts it, that there is no ground either for complaining of the weakness of the proof (Rckert), or for reading the thoughts that form the proof between the lines (Fritzsche and Mehring, with varying arbitrariness); the more especially as afterwards, in Rom 3:7 , a still further confirmation of the . follows.
[748] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[749] After , is not again to be understood, and then . . . to be taken as a question ensuing thereon (Mangold, p. 106). A breaking up of the construction without due ground. Compare, rather, Rom 9:14 , a passage which in form also is perfectly parallel to this one.
[750] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[751] . . . .
[752] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[753] . . . .
[754] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I (speak as a man) (6) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? (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? (8) And not (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
(NOTE: For Rom 3:5-8 see end)
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I (speak as a man) (6) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? (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? (8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. (9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (13) Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: (15) Their feet are swift to shed blood: (16) Destruction and misery are in their ways: (17) And the way of peace have they not known: (18) There is no fear of God before their eyes. (19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
The Apostle having very fully answered every objection, and shewn, by the plainest and most incontrovertible arguments, that neither Jew nor Gentile could justify themselves before God, both, being in the Adam-state of nature, of original sin, and actual transgression; he now calls upon the Church, to consider their situation, under the Gospel dispensation, and demands whether they thought themselves, as to any external privileges, brought into a better state, so as to be able to contribute anything towards their own justification before God? To which Paul answers, both for himself and them, in declaring the contrary. And, as he had before shewn, that both Jew, and Gentile, were proved to be sinners; so the Church, considered in the Adam-nature of a fallen state, were equally so before God, And, in confirmation of this, the Apostle quotes at large, what the Scriptures bad long before delivered, on this momentous point, which brought in the whole world guilty before God. I earnestly beg the Reader to pause over this subject, and consider its weighty nature. However humbling, yet it is important to be known. For, in proportion to the conviction of it on the mind, so will be, more or less, our real regard to the Lord Jesus Christ, and his salvation. For the words at the end of this paragraph, by the law is the knowledge of sin: See Rom 7:7 and Commentary.
Rom 3:5-8 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I (speak as a man) (6) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? (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? (8) And not (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I (speak as a man) (6) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? (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? (8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
The Apostle foresaw, how ready the carnal, and ungodly, would be, to take offence at this statement; as if the doctrine led to licentiousness. And moreover, the infidel would go further, and charge God with unrighteousness, while punishing for sin, in one instance, while in another, taking occasion from sin, to magnify and display the riches of his grace. But, the Apostle refutes the unjust charge; and, by the plainest statement shews, that it is but just in God to commend his righteousness in pardoning his people, because, in the Person of their glorious Head, he hath received a full equivalent for their transgression. While, on the other hand, God is not unrighteous, when he takes vengeance on the ungodly, who despise redemption by Christ; for they stand upon the bottom of self-security, and consequently fall in the day of judgment. And, ill respect to the false and malicious slander, thrown upon the Lord’s people, as if they should assert what they totally deny, that they may live as they like; this charge is not so directly leveled at the Lord’s people, as it is at the Lord himself. It ariseth from the deadly hatred of the Devil, against Christ, and his people. And therefore, he stirs up the minds of carnal men, to be indignant against the sovereignty of Jehovah, and against the glorious doctrine of justification wholly by Christ. It is these precious truths, which are arraigned at man’s bar. It is these things, which excite, both the bitterest hatred of Satan, and unawakened sinners, But, to raise the hue and cry against the Lord himself for his dispensations, would be too open and barefaced; and therefore, the charge is brought forward against the Lord’s people, as if their doctrines led to licentiousness. Reader! You cannot be a stranger to these things, if you observe what is going on in the present day, among what is called the religious world; for it is precisely the same as it was in the days of the Apostle. Indeed it is a blessed proof, and ought to be regarded as such by the faithful, that the Apostle’s faith and practice were the same then, as the faith and practice of the present hour, among the true followers of Christ, since they are subject to the same calumny. We know, and our opposers know, that they who from right principles, profess faith in the sole justification by Christ, cannot lead lives unsuitable to this precious doctrine. The thing is impossible. For they art regenerated by God the Holy Ghost, live thereby in union with Christ, and are followers of God the Father, as dear children. Hence, they may, and they do, challenge the whole neighborhood where they dwell, whether they are not examples of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity, 1Ti 4:12 . That beautiful Portrait Paul hath drawn in his Epistle to the Philippians, is the character which every child of God seeks for grace to copy after, and to form his life by. Finally, Brethren, (said he,) whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things, Phi 4:8 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
Ver. 5. Is God unrighteous ] Such heart boilings there were in the rejected Jews. And Job said little less, till God, overhearing him, steps, as it were, from behind the curtains, and takes him up for it, Job 38:2 ; “Who is this,” saith he, that talketh thus? How now?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. ] In the citation, the penitent regarded his sin as having been the instrument of bringing out God’s justice into clearer light. On the abuse which might be made of such a view, the Apostle founds another question: It would almost seem as if God would be unjust in inflicting His wrath (the consequences of His wrath) on men whose very impiety has been the means whereby His own righteousness has been shewn forth, and established.’
] ‘of the Jews ’ (Grot., De Wette, &c.), not ‘of all men’ (Fritzsche), for only to the Jews can Rom 3:7 apply.
] viz. that established by the of Rom 3:4 ; not His goodness (as Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., al.), nor His truth (Beza, al.).
] said, as elsewhere by Paul, to excuse a supposition bearing with it an aspect of inconsistency or impiety: not implying that he speaks in the person of another , but that he puts himself into the place of the generality of men, and uses arguments such as they would use.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 3:5 f. Here another attempt is made to invalidate the conclusion of chap. 2, that the Jew is to be judged “according to his works,” exactly like the Gentile. If the argument of Rom 3:3 f. is correct, the unbelief of the Jews actually serves to set off the faithfulness of God: it makes it all the more conspicuous; how then can it leave them exposed to judgment? This argument is generalised in Rom 3:5 and answered in Rom 3:6 . “If our unrighteousness” (in the widest sense, being generalised from , Rom 3:3 ) demonstrates ( cf. Rom 5:8 ) God’s righteousness (also in the widest sense, being generalised from , Rom 3:3 ), what shall we say? i.e. , what inference shall we draw? Surely not that God, He who inflicts the wrath due to unrighteousness at the last day (Rom 1:18 ), is Himself unrighteous, to speak as men speak. Away with the thought! If this were so, how should God judge the world? That God does judge the world at last is a fixed point both for Paul and those with whom he argues; hence every inference which conflicts with it must be summarily set aside. God could not judge at all if He were unjust; therefore, since He does judge, He is not unjust, not even in judging men whose unrighteousness may have served as a foil to His righteousness. It is not thus that the conclusions of chap. 2 can be evaded by the Jew. : the “attributive participle equivalent to a relative clause, may, like a relative clause, convey a subsidiary idea of cause, purpose, condition or concession” (Burton, Moods and Tenses , 428, who renders here: is God unrighteous, who (because He) visiteth with wrath?). : cf. Gal 3:15 , Rom 6:19 , 1Co 9:8 . There is always something apologetic in the use of such expressions. Men forget the difference between God and themselves when they contemplate such a situation as that God should be unrighteous; obviously it is not to be taken seriously. Still, in human language such suppositions are made, and Paul begs that in his lips they may not be taken for more than they really mean.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
unrighteousness. Greek. adikia. App-128.
commend = establish, set forth. Greek. sunistemi.
righteousness. Greek. dikaiosune. App-191. Compare Rom 1:17.
what shall we say? Greek. ti eroumen. This expression occurs seven times; here, Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7; Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14, Rom 9:30.
Is, &c. See “shall”, Rom 3:3.
taketh = inflicts. Greek. epiphero. Occurances: Jud 1:9.
vengeance = the wrath. See Rom 1:18.
as. Greek. kata. App-104. Compare Rom 6:19. This is the Figure of speech Hypotimesis. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] In the citation, the penitent regarded his sin as having been the instrument of bringing out Gods justice into clearer light. On the abuse which might be made of such a view, the Apostle founds another question:-It would almost seem as if God would be unjust in inflicting His wrath (the consequences of His wrath) on men whose very impiety has been the means whereby His own righteousness has been shewn forth, and established.
] of the Jews (Grot., De Wette, &c.), not of all men (Fritzsche), for only to the Jews can Rom 3:7 apply.
] viz. that established by the of Rom 3:4; not His goodness (as Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., al.),-nor His truth (Beza, al.).
] said, as elsewhere by Paul, to excuse a supposition bearing with it an aspect of inconsistency or impiety:-not implying that he speaks in the person of another, but that he puts himself into the place of the generality of men, and uses arguments such as they would use.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 3:5. , but if) This new argument, urged through a Jewish person, is elicited from the verb thou mayest be justified, in the preceding verse.- , unrighteousness) of which a man is guilty through unbelief.- , what shall we say) Paul shows that this, their peculiar advantage [Rom 3:1], does not prevent the Jews from being under sin.- ) the inflicter of wrath [taketh vengeance] upon the unbelieving Jews. The article has a particular force. The allusion is to Psa 7:11, , ( for ; the LXX. from the similarity of letters, mistaking God for not], : God is a just judge, and (not being substituted for God) a God inflicting wrath.- , as a man) Man, according to the principles of human nature, might reason thus: My wickedness is subservient to the Divine glory, and makes it the more conspicuous, as darkness doth the light; therefore, I should not be punished.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 3:5
Rom 3:5
But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God,-The argument had been that mans sins had called out the manifestation of Gods mercy and so commended his mercy to the world.
what shall we say?-Is he as the inflicter of the wrath unrighteous? Is it just of him to punish the sin that confirms the sole glory of his righteousness?
Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath?-But since sin is the occasion of Gods mercy, is he unrighteous in punishing those who sin?
(I speak after the manner of men).-[What he was saying was according to the foolish and unworthy thoughts of God entertained by man, not his own thoughts. It is quite likely that Paul, in dealing with the subtle, wily Jew, had frequently met those who contended that what he taught as Gods promises, when they came to pass on Israel, will appear all the more gracious on account of the nation’s unbelief. And if that is true, their obstinacy had turned out to the glory of God, why, then, should he punish them for that which had been the occasion of its manifestation?]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
righteousness
(See Scofield “Rom 3:21”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
But if: Rom 3:7, Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26, Rom 8:20, Rom 8:21
what shall: Rom 4:1, Rom 6:1, Rom 7:7, Rom 9:13, Rom 9:14
Is God: Rom 2:5, Rom 3:19, Rom 9:18-20, Rom 12:19, Deu 32:39-43, Psa 58:10, Psa 58:11, Psa 94:1, Psa 94:2, Nah 1:2, Nah 1:6-8, 2Th 1:6-9, Rev 15:3, Rev 16:5-7, Rev 18:20
I speak: Rom 6:19, 1Co 9:8, Gal 3:15
Reciprocal: Gen 18:23 – Wilt Deu 32:4 – without Jos 7:8 – what shall Jdg 20:25 – destroyed 2Ch 19:7 – no iniquity Neh 9:35 – For they Job 13:7 – General Job 34:10 – far Job 34:17 – even Job 36:23 – Thou Psa 96:10 – judge Psa 119:75 – right Psa 119:137 – General Psa 145:17 – righteous Pro 1:16 – General Isa 10:22 – with Jer 12:1 – Righteous Jer 50:15 – for it Eze 18:25 – way Mic 6:3 – testify Rom 2:2 – judgment Rom 3:9 – what then Rom 5:8 – commendeth Rom 9:19 – Why doth Rom 9:30 – shall 1Co 14:15 – What Heb 6:10 – God Heb 11:32 – what shall Rev 13:18 – the number
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3:5
Rom 3:5. Paul does not agree with the complaints of men, but uses some of them to show the greatness of God. For instance, the unrighteousness of man emphasizes the righteousness of God by contrast. I speak as a man means he was using the arguments of men to show that they were wrong.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 3:5. But, introducing the common objection: If God thus prevails, do we not, by our sin, help on His glory. The answer to this objection follows (Rom 3:5-8). Paul admits the premise but denies the conclusion.
Our unrighteousness. The opposite of righteousness; here used quite generally.
Commendeth, or, established. The word may have either sense. The former makes the objection stronger, and is preferable here; in chapter Rom 5:8, where the word occurs again, both senses are suggested.
The righteousness of God. Here His character or attribute.
What shall we say? This phrase occurs several times in this Epistle, and was frequent among the Rabbins. It is a formula of meditation on a difficulty, a problem, in which there is danger of a false conclusion. It was also in use among the classical authors. (Lange.) This is the preparation for the negative answer to the next question.
Is God unrighteous who is inflicting the wrath? This is the unwarranted conclusion, which is denied by the very form of the question in the original. The emphasis rests on unrighteous, which refers to His character as Judge (comp. Rom 3:6-7). The wrath, the well-known judicial wrath, at the judgment. This is a designation of God, being as He is, one who is inflicting the wrath, and is not equivalent to, where He inflicts, etc.
I speak after the manner of men. This parenthetical clause is a third protest against the wrong conclusion, which is directly denied in Rom 3:6. He speaks as men would speak; the question is one he could not ask as a Christian, still less as an Apostle. I say this just as an ordinary man, not under the influence of the divine Spirit, may well say it (Meyer). So that the phrase favors, instead of opposing, Pauls inspiration.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
A third objection here followeth, namely, “That if the unrighteousness of men, that is, both of Jews and Gentiles, tends so visibly to commend, that is, to illustrate and recommend the righteousness of God, namely, his wisdom, grace, and favour, in appointing this way of justification by faith in Christ; how can it be right in God to punish them for this unrighteousness, which tends so highly to illustrate the glory of his gospel-grace?” The apostle tells us, that in making this objection, he spake as a man, that is, as natural and carnal men are ready to think and speak: But, says he, God forbid that we should entertain such a thought, as if God either were, or could be unrighteous; for then how shall God judge the world, for their unrighteousness?
Learn hence, 1. That although the unrighteousness and wickedness of men be over-ruled by God, to subserve the purposes of his glory; yet is God just in punishing all unrighteousness and wickedness whatsoever. God is never intentionally, but is sometimes accidentally glorified by the sin of man. There never was such an hellish wickedness committed, as crucifying Christ; nothing, by which God ever reaped greater glory, than by the death of his Son: Yet is the wrath of God come upon the Jews to the utmost, and that most justly, for their committing of that wickedness.
Learn, 2. That the righteous God neither doth, nor can do any iniquity or unrighteousness whatsoever; Is God unrighteous? How then shall God judge the world? God is judge of all the world, and cannot but do right; because the universality of his power puts him above all possibility of error in the exercise of his power. The very reason why God cannot exercise his power beyond the limits of justice, is because his power is altogether unlimited; he can do whatsoever he will do; and whatsoever he will do, is for that reason just: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Rom 3:5-6. But It may be further objected; if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God Be subservient to Gods glory; or, if our infidelity be so far from making void the faithfulness of God, that it renders it more illustrious, then we ought not to be condemned for it. But Dr. Whitby understands, by the righteousness of God, the righteousness of faith, which indeed is generally the meaning of the phrase in this epistle; and, as in the first chapter the necessity of this faith is shown with respect to the Gentiles, because otherwise they, being unrighteous, could not be justified before God, or escape his wrath revealed against all unrighteousness; and in the second chapter the same is proved respecting the Jews by reason of their unrighteousness, which arguments plainly serve to commend and establish this way of righteousness by faith in Christ, from the necessity of it to the justification both of Jews and Gentiles; he therefore considers the import of the objection to be, If the unrighteousness both of Jews and Gentiles tend so visibly to illustrate and recommend the wisdom and grace of God, in appointing this way of justification by faith in Christ, is it righteous in God to punish both Jews and Gentiles, as you say he has done and will do, for that unrighteousness that tends so highly to advance the glory of divine grace displayed in the gospel? What shall we say What inference shall we draw? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance Must we grant that God acts unjustly in punishing those practices which so illustrate his mercy, faithfulness, and other perfections? I speak as a man As a mere natural man, not acquainted with the revealed will of God, or not influenced by his Spirit; or as human weakness would be apt to speak. God forbid That I should harbour such a thought, or allow such a consequence; for then If it were unjust in him to punish that unrighteousness which is subservient to his own glory, how should God judge the world Since all the unrighteousness in the world will then commend the righteousness of God. Add to this, the very idea of Gods judging the world, implies that it shall be done in righteousness. For if any person were to have injustice done him on that occasion, it would not be judgment, but a capricious exercise of power, whereby the Judge would be dishonoured. On this idea is founded the answer which Abraham made to God, respecting the destruction of Sodom, which answer perhaps the apostle had now in his eye, Gen 18:25; Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 5, 6. But if our unrighteousness establish the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is not God unrighteous when He inflicts wrath? I speak as a man. Let it not be: for then how shall God judge the world?
From the that, Rom 3:4, it seemed to follow that God wills the sin of man for His own glory. But in that case, has He the right to condemn an act from which He reaps advantage, and to be angry with him who commits it? This objection might be put in the mouth of a Jew, who, placing himself at Paul’s view-point, and hearing him say that Israel’s rejection of the Messiah will glorify God’s faithfulness, and conduce to the accomplishment of His plans, judged God highly unjust for being angry with Israel on account of such conduct. Our unbelief would then signify the unbelief of us Jews. But the contrast which prevailed in Rom 3:4 was that between God and every man, and not between Jew and Gentile. It is therefore more natural to apply the term our unrighteousness to human unrighteousness in general, undoubtedly with special application to the Jewish unrighteousness which gives rise to the objection. It is from the depths of the human conscience that the apostle fetches his question. Is it righteous on God’s part to judge an act which He turns to His own advantage? As Paul had previously substituted the idea of truth for that of (God’s) faithfulness, he here substitutes righteousness for truth. This term in its most general sense denotes the perfection in virtue of which God cannot become guilty of any wrong toward any being whatever. Now this is what He seems to do to the sinner, when He at once condemns and makes use of him. It is from the word: that Thou mayest be acknowledged righteous, Rom 3:4, that Paul derives the term righteousness, Rom 3:5., strictly: to cause to stand together, whence: to confirm, to establish. The question , what shall we say? does not occur in any other letter of the apostle’s; but it is frequent in this (Rom 4:1, Rom 6:1, Rom 7:1, Rom 8:31, Rom 9:14; Rom 9:30). It serves to fix the mind of the reader on the state of the question, at the point which the discussion has reached. If it had been in the interest of a certain school of criticism to deny the authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans, it is easy to see what advantage it would have taken of this form so exclusively characteristic of this treatise.
The interrogative form with assumes, as it always does, that the answer will be negative: God is not, however, unjust in…? It is certainly the apostle who is speaking, and not an opponent; for the objection is thus expressed in the outset as one resolved in the negative. The phrase: to inflict wrath, alludes to Rom 2:4-5, where the apostle threatened Israel with divine wrath against the day of wrath; but the question is nevertheless put in a perfectly general sense.
There is always something revolting to a conscience enlightened from above, in joining the epithet unrighteous with the word God, even hypothetically. This is why Paul adds: I speak as a man. By man he here understands man left to himself and his own reason, speaking with lightness and presumption of the ways of God. Some commentators would join this explanatory remark with what follows. But the following exclamation ( , let it not be so), is absolutely opposed to this.
The argument of Rom 3:6, according to Meyer, is this: How would God be disposed to judge the world, if there was no righteousness in Him? For the troublesome consequences of sin could not impel Him to it, since He can turn them to good. It must be confessed that this would be a singularly wiredrawn argument. To go to prove God’s righteousness by the fact of the judgment, while it is the fact of the judgment which rests on divine righteousness! If the apostle had reasoned thus, Rckert would have been right in declaring that the argument was insufficient. But the reasoning is quite different. Meyer might have found it clearly stated by Olshausen: If God’s drawing a good result from a bad deed were enough to destroy His right to judge him who committed it, the final judgment would evidently become impossible; for as God is always turning to good the evil which men have devised, every sinner could plead in his defence: My sin has after all served some good end.
One might be tempted to apply the word the world exclusively to the Gentile world, which would lead us to the explanation whereby Rom 3:5 is put into a Jewish mouth. To this Jewish interlocutor, excusing the sin of his nation by the good fruits which God will one day reap from it, Paul would then answer: But at this rate God could as little judge the Gentiles (the world). For He brings good fruits from their sins also. This meaning is very plausible in itself. But yet it does not correspond with the apostle’s thought. For the word , the world, would then have such an emphasis (as forming an antithesis to the Jews), that it would necessarily require to be placed before the verb. The idea is therefore more general: No final judgment is any longer possible if the beneficial consequences of sin, human or Jewish, justify the sinner. This idea is exactly that which is expounded in the two following verses.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) [I am not expressing my own views, but those of the man who objects to the truth I am presenting.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? whether is God unrighteous administering wrath? I speak after the manner of a man.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 5
Commend the righteousness of God; is the means of exalting it, setting it in a clear point of view.– Who taketh vengeance; who inflicts punishment.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
3:5 {2} But if our {g} unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as {h} a man)
(2) Another objection resulting from the former answer: that the justice of God is commended and set forth by our unrighteousness in such a way that God does not therefore forget that he is the judge of the world, and therefore a most severe avenger of unrighteousness.
(g) Treachery, and all the fruits of it.
(h) Therefore I do not speak these words of my own accord, as though this is what I thought, but this is the talk of man’s wisdom, which is not subject to the will of God.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The third question connects with David’s situation (Rom 3:4). Since the Jews’ failings set off God’s righteousness more sharply by contrast, might not God deal more graciously with the Jews in His judgment of them? Surely He would not be unrighteous in failing to take that into consideration, would He?
Evidently Paul felt constrained to explain that he was "speaking in human terms" or "using a human argument" because he, representing an objector, had suggested that God was unjust. Paul did not want his readers to conclude that he really thought God was unfaithful to His own person and word. He was just saying that for the sake of the argument.
"It [the technical term ’I am speaking in human terms’] constitutes an apology for a statement which, but for the apology, would be too bold, almost blasphemous." [Note: David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 396.]
Paul’s answer was this. God will not show favoritism to the Jews even though by their unfaithfulness they glorify the faithfulness of God. If He did so, He would be partial and not qualified to sit in judgment on humankind.