7<\/strong>. For if<\/em>, &c.] Here St Paul takes up the Opponent on his own ground; speaking as a human being whose sin (e.g. a falsehood) serves to make God’s truth “abound to His glory;” i.e. be more largely manifest in a way to win Him fresh praise: in such a case is not Paul, is not A, B, or C, equally entitled with the Jewish opponent to be excused penalty? In the Gr. of the clause “why am I yet, &c.,” the word “I” is strongly emphatic; I also;<\/strong> i.e. “I, as well as my opponent.” “Why am I yet<\/em>, &c.:” i.e. “after the recognition of the effect of my sin on the advancement of God’s glory.” “ By my lie;<\/em> ” lit. in my lie;<\/strong> i.e. “on occasion of it, in connexion with it.”<\/p>\n For if … – <\/B>This is an objection similar to the former. It is indeed but another form of the same.<\/P> The truth of God – <\/B>His truth or faithfulness in adhering to his threatenings. God threatened to punish the guilty. By their guilt he will take occasion to show his own truth; or their crime will furnish occasion for such an exhibition.<\/P> Hath more abounded – <\/B>Has been more striking, or more manifest. His truth will be shown by the fulfillment of all his promises to his people, and of all his predictions. But it will also be shown by fulfilling his threatenings on the guilty. It will, therefore, more abound by their condemnation; that is, their condemnation will furnish new and striking instances or his truth. Every lost sinner will be, therefore, an eternal monument of the truth of God.<\/P> Through my lie – <\/B>By means of my lie, or as one of the results of my falsehood. The word lie here means falsehood, deceitfulness, unfaithfulness. If by the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people to the covenant, occasion should be given to God to glorify himself, how could they be condemned for it?<\/P> Unto his glory – <\/B>To his praise, or so as to show his character in such a way as to excite the praise and admiration of his intelligent creation.<\/P> Why yet am I … – <\/B>How can that act be regarded as evil, which tends to promote the glory of God? The fault in the reasoning of the objector is this, that he takes for granted that the direct tendency of his conduct is to promote Gods glory, whereas it is just the reverse; and it is by Gods reversing that tendency, or overruling it, that he obtains his glory. The tendency of murder is not to honor the Law, or to promote the security of society, but just the reverse. Still, his execution shall avert the direct tendency of his crime, and do honor to the law and the judge, and promote the peace and security of the community by restraining others.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 7<\/span>. JEW. For if the truth of God<\/B><\/I>, &c.] But to resume my reasoning (Ro 3:5<\/span>\ud83d\ude42 If the faithfulness of God in keeping his promise made to our fathers is, through our unfaithfulness, made far more glorious than it otherwise would have been, why should we then be blamed<\/I> for that which must redound so much to the honour of God?<\/P><\/p>\n By truth<\/B> he means the faithfulness and veracity of God; as by lie, <\/I>the perfidiousness and inconstancy of man; ut supra et alibi.<\/I> <\/P> Why yet am I also judged as a sinner?<\/B> q.d. If more glory accrues to the name of God by my wickedness, what reason is there that I should be punished, and proceeded against as an offender, who have occasioned this further glory to God? The apostle doth plainly personate in this place a wicked objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent among all authors; and it is found sometimes with the penmen of the Holy Scriptures: see Ecc 3:19-22<\/span>; 1Co 15:32<\/span>. The apostle tells the Corinthians, 1Co 4:6<\/span>, that in a figure he transferred some things to himself and to Apollos for their sakes, that they might not be puffed up; he, counted such schemes and figures as these to be most profitable and efficacious to the reader. <\/P> <\/p>\n 7, 8. For if the truth of God,<\/B>c.A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, “Suchreasoning amounts to thiswhich indeed we who preach salvation byfree grace are slanderously accused of teachingthat the more evilwe do, the more glory will redound to God a damnable principle.”(Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks itenough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moralsense). <\/P> On this brief section, Note<\/I>(1) Mark the place here assigned to the Scriptures. In answer to thequestion, “What advantage hath the Jew?” or, “Whatprofit is there of circumcision?” (Ro3:1<\/span>) those holding Romish views would undoubtedly have laid thestress upon the priesthood,<\/I> as the glory of the Jewisheconomy. But in the apostle’s esteem, “the oracles of God”were the jewel of the ancient Church (Rom 3:1<\/span>;Rom 3:2<\/span>). (2) God’s eternalpurposes and man’s free agency, as also the doctrine of salvation bygrace and the unchanging obligations of God’s law, have ever beensubjected to the charge of inconsistency by those who will bow to notruth which their own reason cannot fathom. But amidst all the cloudsand darkness which in this present state envelop the divineadministration and many of the truths of the Bible, such broad anddeep principles as are here laid down, and which shine in their ownluster, will be found the sheet-anchor of our faith. “Let God betrue, and every man a liar” (Ro3:4<\/span>); and as many advocates of salvation by grace as say, “Letus do evil that good may come,” “their damnation is just”(Ro 3:8<\/span>). <\/P> Ro3:9-20<\/span>. THAT THE JEWIS SHUTUP UNDER LIKECONDEMNATION WITH THEGENTILE ISPROVED BY HISOWN SCRIPTURE.<\/P><\/p>\n For if the truth of God<\/strong>,…. The “truth of God” is the same with “the righteousness of God”, Ro 3:5<\/span>, and means his faithfulness; of which it is hypothetically said, it<\/p>\n hath more abounded<\/strong>; or has been more illustrated,<\/p>\n through my lie to his glory<\/strong>: nothing is more opposite to truth than a lie; a lie of itself can never be of any advantage to truth, or to the God of truth; nothing is more contrary to the nature of God, and more abominable to him; a lie is of the devil, and punishable with eternal death; wherefore it may seem strange, that the truth of God should abound through it to his glory: now let it be observed, that the apostle is not speaking of himself, nor of his lie of unbelief, in his state of unregeneracy; but in the person of a sinful man, “for every man is a liar”, Ro 3:4<\/span>, as he says, “I speak as a man”, Ro 3:5<\/span>; representing a wicked man, who from what was before said, might collect this as the sense of it, that the truth of God is illustrated by the lies of men: and so much may be owned as the apostle’s sense, that the truth of God is commended, illustrated, and made to abound, when it is asserted, that he is true and faithful, and every man is a liar, fallacious, and deceitful; “let God be true, and every man a liar”, Ro 3:4<\/span>: moreover, the truth of God may be allowed to abound through the lies of men, in a comparative sense, the one being set against the other; and so as contraries do, illustrate each other: this may be assented to, as that sometimes a lie has been overruled by God, for the accomplishing of his purposes and promises, in which his truth and faithfulness have been displayed, as in the cases of Jacob and the Egyptian midwives; but then this does not arise from its nature and tendency, but from the overruling wisdom and providence of God, and therefore not to be excused hereby from sin; and consequently the inference from it is not just, that therefore “no man can, or ought to be, judged as a sinner”; since his sin turns to such account, as to make for the glory of God, which is intimated in the question:<\/p>\n why yet am I also judged as a sinner<\/strong>? if this be the case, I ought not to be reckoned a sinner, or to be treated as such here, or judged and condemned as one hereafter, which is a most wicked, as well as weak consequence; for though God is true and faithful to his promises, notwithstanding the sins of his people, which are as a foil, to set off the lustre of his truth the more, yet their sins are nevertheless sins, and are taken notice of by him as such, and they are corrected for them; and however God may overrule, in a providential way, the sins of others for his glory, this is no excuse for their sins, nor will it be an exemption of them from punishment. This is the sense of the passage; unless by “the truth of God” should be meant, the Gospel, the word of truth, which is of God; and which through the apostle’s “lie”, as the Jews might call his ministration of it, “abounded to” the “glory” of God; being spread far and near, and made useful for the conversion of sinners, for turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; and for the planting of churches in the Gentile world, as well as in Judea; which much conduced to the honour of God, and the interest of true religion: and then the meaning of the last clause is, “why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” why am I accounted and condemned as an heretic? as an apostate from the faith? as he was by the Jews, and who are used to call heretics sinners: so “the sinner” in Ec 7:26<\/span> is thus interpreted p, “these are the heretics”: and elsewhere it q is observed, that concerning the heretics it is said, Pr 10:7<\/span>, “the name of the wicked shall rot”: and I very much suspect this to be the sense of the word in Joh 9:24<\/span>, “we know that this man is a sinner”; an heretic, a man of bad principles; and in Joh 9:31<\/span>; “now we know that God heareth not sinners”; men of corrupt minds; since this character stands opposed to a worshipper of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n p Midrash Kohelet, fol. 77. 1. q Juchasin, fol. 130. 2.<\/p>\n Through my lie <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). ] Old word from <\/SPAN><\/span>, to lie, only here in N.T. Paul returns to the imaginary objection in verse 5<\/span>. The MSS. differ sharply here between <\/SPAN><\/span> (but if) and <\/SPAN><\/span> (for if). Paul “uses the first person from motives of delicacy” (Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument’s sake as in 1Co 4:6<\/span>. So here he “transfers by a fiction” (Field) to himself the objection. <\/P> <\/p>\n Lie [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Only here in the New Testament. The expression carries us back to ver. 4, and is general for moral falsehood, unfaithfulness to the claims of conscience and of God, especially with reference to the proffer of salvation through Christ.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “For if the truth of God,”<\/strong> (ei de he aletheia tou theou), “But if the truth of God,” the veracity, trustworthiness, of his holiness, goodness, and even judgment for wrong, Rom 1:25<\/span>; Rom 2:2<\/span>; 1Ti 3:15<\/span>; Joh 17:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Hath more abounded,”<\/strong> (eperisseusen) “has superabounded,” or was enhanced, through Paul’s salvation and ministry, Act 20:20-21<\/span>; Act 20:26-27<\/span>; Act 26:25<\/span>; 1Co 9:22-27<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Through my lie unto his glory,”<\/strong> (en to emo pseusmati eis ten doksan auton) “In my lie (lying) to his glory,” thru my unfaithfulness, or my sin (as the Jews, my people say), by my turning from the deeds of Judaism to the glory of God.<\/p>\n 4) “Why yet am I also judged as a sinner?”<\/strong> (ti eti kago hos hamartolos krinomai?) “Why am I also still judged as a mark-missing-sinner?” Why am I condemned by men, by the Jews, especially, simply because he turned from the forms and ceremonies and deeds of Judaism to Jesus Christ, Act 26:15-23<\/span>; Php_3:2-14; Gal 6:14<\/span>. Judgment by one’s fellowman, apart from the truth of God, is never to frustrate one from following truth. 1Co 4:3<\/span>; 1Co 10:29<\/span>. Paul’s conversion and change of life had gravely indicted Judaism as a form of hypocrisy, but it (his salvation and changed life by the simplicity of the gospel) had infuriated the truth rejecting Jews, Rom 9:1-2<\/span>; Rom 10:1-4<\/span>.<\/p>\n OUR JUDGE OR ADVOCATE, WHICH?<\/strong><\/p>\n When he was a young man, Judge Warren Candler practiced law. One of his clients was charged with murder. The young lawyer went all out in his effort to clear his client of the charge. There were some extenuating circumstances, and the lawyer made the most of them in his plea before the jury. Too, there were present in the court the aged father and mother of the man charged with murder. The young lawyer wrought greatly on the sympathies and emotions of the jury by frequent references to the God-fearing parents. In due course the jury retired for deliberation. After reaching a verdict, they returned to the jury box. Their verdict read, “We find the defendant not guilty!” The young lawyer, himself a Christian, had a serious talk with his cleared client. He warned him to steer clear of evil ways, and trust God’s power to keep him straight. Years passed. The man was again arraigned. Again the charge was murder. The lawyer who had defended him at his first trail was now the judge on the bench. At the conclusion of the trial the jury rendered its verdict: “Guilty!” Ordering the condemned man to stand for sentencing Judge Candler said, “At your first trial I was your lawyer, your advocate. Today I am your judge. The verdict of the jury makes it mandatory for me to sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you are dead. May God be merciful to your soul!”<\/p>\n Oh, ye unsaved rejecters of Christ, accept Him now. He who may now be your Advocate will later be your Judge? <\/p>\n –Told by Dr. T. W. Callaway<\/p>\n 7. If indeed (92) the truth of God, etc. This objection, I have no doubt, is adduced in the person of the ungodly; for it is a sort of an explanation of the former verse, and would have been connected with it, had not the Apostle, moved with indignation, broken off the sentence in the middle. The meaning of the objection is — “If by our unfaithfulness the truth of God becomes more conspicuous, and in a manner confirmed, and hence more glory redounds to him, it is by no means just, that he, who serves to display God’s glory, should be punished as a sinner.” (93) <\/p>\n (92) Or, “For if” — Si enim — εἰ γὰρ. The particle γὰρ here gives no reason, but is to be viewed as meaning then, or indeed, verily; see Luk 12:58<\/span>; Joh 9:30<\/span>; Act 16:37<\/span>; Phi 2:27<\/span> [ Stuart ] renders it, still, and says, that it “points to a connection with verse. 5, and denotes a continuance of the same theme.” [ Macknight ] often renders it by further, besides, and no doubt rightly. — Ed. <\/p>\n (93) It is remarkable how the Apostle changes his words from the third verse to the end of this, while the same things are essentially meant. His style is throughout Hebraistic. [ Stuart ] makes these just remarks, “Αδικία is here [Rom 3:5<\/span> ] the generic appellation of sin, for which a specific name, ἀπιστία, was employed in Rom 3:3<\/span>, and ψεῦσμα, in Rom 3:7<\/span>. In like manner the δικαιοσύνη, in Rom 3:5<\/span>, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one, πίστιν, in Rom 3:3<\/span>, and by ἀλήθεια, in Rom 3:7<\/span>. The idea is substantially the same, which is designated by these respectively corresponding appellations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity, are designated by πίστιν, δικαιοσύνην, and ἀλήθεια; while ἀλήθεια, and ἀπιστία ἀδικία, designate unfaithfulness, want of uprightness and false dealing. All of these terms have more or less reference to the ברית, covenant or compact (so to speak) which existed between God and his ancient people.” — Ed. <\/p>\n (7) The truth of God.<\/strong>In the first instance His veracity as involved in His threats and promises, and then those other attributes, especially justice, that are intimately connected with this. Truth is leaning towards its moral sense. (See Note on Rom. 2:8<\/span>.)<\/p>\n My lie.<\/strong>The Apostle puts his supposed case in the first person. Lie, suggested as an antithesis to the word truth, just used, has also a moral signification. It is the moral deflection that follows upon unbelief.<\/p>\n 7<\/strong>. <\/strong> For<\/strong> The apostle now states in the first person singular what every man in the world <\/em> might argue as well as the Jew. <\/p>\n Truth lie<\/strong> Faithfulness or falseness to the divine covenant, or the divine law of right. All sin is lie<\/strong>. <\/p>\n Judged<\/strong> If clearly illustrating the divine righteousness transforms sin to holiness for the Jew, then it also makes every sinner <\/em> to be no sinner, <\/em> and makes it impossible for him to be judged<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ‘But if the truth of God through my lie abounds to his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?’<\/p>\n But the questioner persists. Surely if the consequence of the Jews being untrue highlights the fact that God is true and therefore abounds to His glory, it would be unjust of God to see them as sinners, for in the final analysis what they were doing would result in something good. It is now apparent that the questioner has got away from the question of sin and its seriousness by getting tangled up in a specious rational argument. The argument is really that the end justifies the means. It revealed quite clearly that the questioner had no idea of the holiness and righteousness of the God with Whom they were dealing, a God Who must call into account people for what they ARE.<\/p>\n Rom 3:7-8<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>For if the truth of God, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> The particle for <\/em>joins what follows in this verse, to vengeance, <\/em>or wrath, <\/em>in the fifth, and shews it to be a continuation of the objection begun there. But the whole eighth verse is the Apostle’s answer, the true sense of which seems to be this: Says the Jew, “If the faithfulness of God in keeping his promise is, through our wickedness, made far more glorious than otherwise it would have been, why should we Jews be blamed and condemned as sinners, for that which redounds to the honour of God?” To which the Apostle replies, Rom 3:8<\/span>. “And why do you not say, <\/em>and draw it into a general rule and maxim, that in all cases we ought to do wickedly, because God can one way or other turn it to his own glory? an impious sentiment, which some charge upon me; as if, when I magnify the grace of God in pardoning sin, I advanced this notion, that we ought to do evil, that good (God’s glory) may come of it: for which, and other malicious opposition to the Gospel, they shall come under the just condemnation of God.” See a further answer, chap. Rom 9:19<\/span>, &c. We may just observe, that rather, <\/em>Rom 3:8<\/span> is not in the Greek, and it seems to be improperly supplied. The sense is more truly and clearly filled up thus: And why do you not say? <\/em>which falls in naturally with what follows, “Why do you not say, as some affirm that we say?” Such an elliptical way of speaking we have, Rev 22:9<\/span>. , see not, <\/em>that is to say, “See thou do it not.” Through my lie, <\/em>Rom 3:7<\/span> is to be understood as not believing, <\/em>Rom 3:3<\/span> and as Isa 63:8<\/span>. For he said, surely they are my people, children that will not lie; <\/em>that is, “violate my covenant by perfidiously forsaking me, and falling into disobedience and wickedness.” The last clause of Rom 3:8<\/span> whose condemnation is just, <\/em>seems manifestly to imply, that there are certain rules which God has laid down for us, disobedience to which, in any imaginable circumstances,is universally a moral evil; even though the quantity of good arising thence to our fellow-creatures should be greater than that arising from an observance of those rules; for if this be not allowed, there can be no shadow of force in the Apostle’s conclusion. See Locke and Doddridge. <\/p>\n Rom 3:7<\/span> f. The . . receives its illustrative confirmation;<\/em> for as to the case of God, who would thus be unrighteous<\/em> and nevertheless is to judge<\/em> the world, every ground for judging man as a sinner must be superseded by the circumstance already discussed, viz. that His truth has been glorified<\/em> by man’s falsehood (Rom 3:4<\/span> f.); and (Rom 3:8<\/span> ) as to the case of man himself, there would result the principle directly worthy of condemnation, that he should do evil in order that good might come. Comp Th. Schott, and in substance also Hofmann and Morison. The argument accordingly rests on the basis, that in the case put ( <\/em><\/strong> from Rom 3:6<\/span> ) the relation of God to the judgment of the world would yield two absurd consequences. (See this, as early as Chrysostom.) Another view is that of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, including Rckert, Kollner, Tholuck, Philippi and Umbreit, that the objection of Rom 3:5<\/span> is here amplified. But it is quite as arbitrary and in fact impossible (hence Philippi resorts to the violent expedient of putting in a parenthesis not only <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> . <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , but also <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> . <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ), with the reference of <\/em><\/strong> , to overleap entirely Rom 3:6<\/span> , as it is strange to make the discourse so completely abrupt and to represent the Apostle as making no reply at all to the first part of the alleged amplification of the objection (to Rom 3:7<\/span> ), and as replying to the second part (Rom 3:8<\/span> ) only by an anathema, sit!<\/em> ( . . . .). Against the view of Reiche, who, following Koppe, Rosenmller, and Flatt, thinks that the Gentile<\/em> is introduced as speaking in Rom 3:7<\/span> (compare Olshausen), we may decisively urge the close connection therewith of Rom 3:8<\/span> , where Paul includes himself also<\/em> , but does not “take speech in hand again” (Reiche). See besides on , Rom 3:6<\/span> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> and <\/em><\/strong> are terms chosen in reference to Rom 3:4<\/span> , because the question proposed in Rom 3:5<\/span> was in fact suggested by that verse; but they represent, as Rom 3:5<\/span> proves, the ideas of <\/em><\/strong> and <\/em><\/strong> ; hence: the moral truth, i.e.<\/em> the holy righteousness of God (see on Joh 3:21<\/span> ; Eph 5:9<\/span> ; Phi 4:8<\/span> ), and the moral falsehood, i.e.<\/em> the immorality (Rev 22:15<\/span> ), wickedness of man. [756]<\/p>\n . . ] has abounded richly to His glory<\/em> , that is, has shown itself in superabundant measure, which redounds to His glory. The stress of this protasis lies on .<\/p>\n The aorist<\/em> denotes the result of the having abounded, which subsists at the day of judgment (realised as present by . ) as up to that point accomplished fact.<\/p>\n ] namely, after that assumed result has occurred.<\/p>\n ] emphasising the contradictory relation to the contents of the protasis, according to which this seems actually to have deserved<\/em> something of God: even I<\/em> (Baeumlein, Partik<\/em> . p. 150) who have notwithstanding glorified God through my . So in substance (“ just I<\/em> ” according to Hermann, a<\/em> [757] Viger.<\/em> p. 837) also Tholuck and Morison; compare Philippi: “ even I still<\/em> .” There lies in the expression something of boldness and defiance; but it is not equivalent to , or , to the meaning of which Th. Schott and Hofmann ultimately bring it (“ even personally still<\/em> ”). We may add that this first person, individualising just like the preceding one ( . .), of course represents the sinner in general<\/em> (with an intended application to the Jews<\/em> , see on Rom 3:5<\/span> f), and not the Apostle himself,<\/em> as Schrader and Fritzsche think. Against this latter theory it is decisive that after Rom 3:6<\/span> must indicate, not the judgment of enemies, but necessarily the divine<\/em> act of judging.<\/p>\n .] as a sinner<\/em> , not “ as a Gentile<\/em> ” (Reiche, Mehring), and others.<\/p>\n Rom 3:8<\/span> . ] Before we must again supply : and why should we not<\/em> , etc. Respecting , quidni<\/em> , see Hartung, Partikell<\/em> . II. p. 162. Accordingly, as continues the question, only a comma is to be placed after .<\/p>\n As regards the construction, Paul has dropped the plan of the sentence begun with ( and why should we not do evil<\/em> , etc.), being led away from it by the inserted remark, and has joined in direct address<\/em> ( let us do<\/em> ) to the , so that is recitative<\/em> . But on account of this very blending there is no necessity either to make a parenthesis or to supply anything. For similar attractions (compare especially Xen. Anab.<\/em> vi. 4, 18) in which the discourse is interrupted by an intervening clause, and then continued in a regimen dependent on the latter and no longer suitable to the beginning, see Hermann a<\/em> [758] Viger.<\/em> p. 745, 894; Bernhardy, p. 464; Dissen, a<\/em> [759] Dem. de cor.<\/em> p. 346, 418; Krger, gramm. Unters.<\/em> p. 457 ff. Many erroneous attempts have been made by commentators (see the various explanations in Morison) to bring out an unbroken construction, as e.g.<\/em> the supplying of or some such word after (Erasmus, Calvin, Wolf, Koppe, Benecke, and others, also van Hengel). Even the expedient of Matthias is untenable. [760] The same may be said of that of Hofmann, who supplies an after , and renders: “ Why does it not happen to me according to that, as<\/em> ( ) we are slandered<\/em> ,” etc. But if it is quite gratuitous to supply , it is still more so to make this equivalent to . Besides the negation, which, according to our construction, harmonises with the deliberative sense, would necessarily be not but , since it would negative the reality of the understood (1Co 6:7<\/span> ; Luk 19:23<\/span> ; Luk 20:5<\/span> al<\/em> [761] ). The correct view is held also by Winer and Buttmann (p. 235, 211), Philippi and Morison.<\/p>\n .] as we<\/em> ( Christians<\/em> ) are calumniated<\/em> , namely, as if we did evil in order that, etc. Then the following . contains the accusation, current possibly in Rome also, that the Christians were in the habit of repeating this maxim even as a doctrinal proposition. As to the distinction between (to assert) and , compare on 1Co 10:15<\/span> . What may have occasioned such slanders against the Christians? Certainly their non-observance of the Mosaic law, to which they ventured to deem themselves not bound, in order to gain eternal life by the grace of God through faith in the redemptive work of Christ, which was an offence to the Jews. The plural is not to be referred to Paul alone<\/em> , which would be arbitrary on account of the preceding singular; the Christians are conceived as Pauline<\/em> (comp Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n