Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Romans 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
3:1-8. This argument may suggest three objections: (i) If the moral Gentile is better off than the immoral Jew, what becomes of the Jew’s advantages?—Answer. He still has many. His (e.g.) are the promises (vv. 1-2). (ii) But has not the Jews’ unbelief cancelled those promises?—Answer. No unbelief on the part of man can affect the pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithfulness (vv. 3, 4). (iii) If that is the result of his action, why should man be judged?—Answer. He certainly will be judged: we may not say (as I am falsely accused of saying), Do evil that good may come (vv. 5-8).
1 If the qualifications which God requires are thus inward and spiritual, an objector may urge, What becomes of the privileged position of the Jew, his descent from Abraham, and the like? What does he gain by his circumcision? 2 He does gain much on all sides. The first gain is that to the Jews were committed the prophecies of the Messiah. [Here the subject breaks off; a fuller enumeration is given in ch. 9:4, 5.
3 You say, But the Jews by their unbelief have forfeited their share in those prophecies. And I admit that some Jews have rejected Christianity, in which they are fulfilled. What then? The promises of God do not depend on man. He will keep His word, whatever man may do. 4 To suggest otherwise were blasphemy. Nay, God must be seen to be true, though all mankind are convicted of falsehood. Just as in Psa_51 the Psalmist confesses that the only effect of his own sin will be that (in forensic metaphor) God will be ‘declared righteous’ in His sayings [the promises just mentioned], and gain His case when it is brought to trial.
5 A new objection arises. If our unrighteousness is only a foil to set off the righteousness of God would not God be unjust who punishes men for sin? (Speaking of God as if He were man can hardly be avoided.) 6 That too were blasphemy to think! If any such objection were sound, God could not judge the world. But we know that He will judge it. Therefore the reasoning must be fallacious.
7 If, you say, as in the case before us, the truthfulness of God in performing His promises is only thrown into relief by my infidelity, which thus redounds to His glory, why am I still like other offenders (κί brought up for judgement as a sinner?
8 So the objector. And I know that this charge of saying ‘Let us do evil that good may come’ is brought with slanderous exaggeration against me—as if the stress which I lay on faith compared with works meant, Never mind what your actions are, provided only that the end you have in view is right.
All I will say is that the judgement which these sophistical reasoners will receive is richly deserved.
1 ff. It is characteristic of this Epistle that St. Paul seems to imagine himself face to face with an opponent, and that he discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring against him (so 3:1 ff., 4:1 ff., 6:1 ff., 15 ff., 7:7 ff.). No doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own mind. But at the same time it is a way which would seem to have been suggested by actual experience of controversy with Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. We are told expressly that the charge of saying ‘Let us do evil that good may come’ was brought as a matter of fact against the Apostle (ver. 8). And 6:1, 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. The Apostle as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the logic of his own thought. And the other charge of levelling down all the Jew’s privileges, of ignoring the Old Testament and disparaging its saints, was one which must as inevitably have been brought against St. Paul as the like charges were brought against St. Stephen (Act_6:13 f.). It is probable however that St. Paul had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed against him as a weapon in controversy; and he propounds it in the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reasoning, pro and con., which went to the shaping of his own system. The modified form in which the question comes up the second time (ver. 9) shows—if our interpretation is correct—that St. Paul is there rather following out his own thought than contending with an adversary.
1. τ πρσό. That which encircles a thing necessarily lies outside it. Hence πρ would seem to have a latent meaning ‘beyond,’ which is appropriated rather by πρ, πρν but comes out in πρσό, ‘that which is in excess,’ ‘over and above.’
2. πῶο μν intended to be followed by ἔετ δ, but the line of argument is broken off and not resumed. A list of privileges such as might have followed here is given in ch. 9:4.
πῶο μνγρ om. γρB D* E G minusc. pauc., verss. plur., Chrys. Orig.-lat. al., [γρ WH.
ἐιτύηα. πσεω in the sense of ‘entrust,’ ‘confide,’ takes acc. of the thing entrusted, dat. of the person; e. g. Joh_2:24 ὁδ Ἰσῦ οκἐίτυνἑυὸ [rather ατνor ατν ατῖ. In the passive the dat. becomes nom., and the acc. remains unchanged (Buttmann, pp. 175, 189, 190; Winer, xxxii. 5 [p. 287]; cf. 1Co_9:17; Gal_2:7).
τ λγα St. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O. T. regarded as the Word of God, but he seems to have in view rather those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably Divine; the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the Messiah.
The old account of λγο as a dimin. of λγςis probably correct, though Mey.-W.. make it neut. of λγο on the ground that λγδο is the proper dimin. The form λγδο is rather a strengthened dimin., which by a process common in language took the place of λγο when it acquired the special sense of ‘oracle.’ From Herod. downwards λγο = ‘oracle’ as a brief condensed saying; and so it came to = any ‘inspired, divine utterance’: e.g. in Philo of the ‘prophecies’ and of the ‘ten commandments’ (πρ τνδκ λγω is the title of Philo’s treatise). So in LXX the expression is used of the ‘word of the Lord’ five times in Isaiah and frequently in the Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Psa_119 [118]). From this usage it was natural that it should be transferred to the ‘sayings’ of the Lord Jesus (Polyc. ad Phil. vii. 1 ὃ ἂ μθδύ τ λγατῦΚρο: cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. 1 praef.; also Weiss, Einl. §5. 4). But from the time of Philo onwards the word was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or narrative; so that it is a disputed point whether the λγατῦΚρο which Papias ascribes to St. Matthew, as well as his own λγω κραῶ ἐηήες(Eus. H. E. III. xxxix.16 and 1) were or were not limited to discourse (see especially Lightfoot, Ess. on Supern. Rel. p. 172 ff.).
3. ἠίτσν̣̣̣ἀιτα Do these words refer to ‘unbelief’ (Mey. Gif. Lid. Oltr. Go.) or to ‘unfaithfulness’ (De W. Weiss Lips. Va.)? Probably, on the whole, the former: because (i) the main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the O. T. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ; (ii) chaps. 9-11 show that the problem of Israel’s unbelief weighed heavily on the Apostle’s mind; (iii) ‘unbelief’ is the constant sense of the word (ἀιτωoccurs seven times, in which the only apparent exception to this sense 2Ti_2:13, and ἀιταeleven times, with no clear exception); (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch. 11:20 τ ἀιτᾳἐελσηα, σ δ τ πσε ἕτκς At the same time the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other; so that the ἀιταof man is naturally contrasted with the πσι of God (cf. Va.).
πσι: ‘faithfulness’ to His promises; cf. Lam_3:23 πλὴἡπσι συ Ps. Sol. 8:35 ἡπσι συμθἡῶ.
κτρήε. κτρεν(from κτ causative and ἀγς= ἀρό) = ‘to render inert or inactive’: a characteristic word with St. Paul, occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 2 Thess. Eph_2 Tim.), and only twice elsewhere (Lk. Heb.); = (i) in a material sense, ‘to make sterile or barren,’ of soil Luk_13:7, cf. Rom_6:6 ἳακτρηῇτ σμ τςἁατα, ‘that the body as an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless’; (ii) in a figurative sense, ‘to render invalid,’ ‘abrogate,’ ‘abolish’ (τνἐαγλα Gal_3:17; νμνRom_3:31).
4. μ γνιο a formula of negation, repelling with horror something previously suggested. ‘Fourteen of the fifteen N. T. instances are in Paul’s writings, and in twelve of them it expresses the Apostle’s abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be falsely drawn from his argument’ (Burton, M. and T. §177; cf. also Lft. on Gal_2:17).
It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom., once in 1 Cor., twice in Gal.). It occurs five times in LXX, not however standing alone as here, but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Gen_44:7, Gen_44:17; Jos_22:29, Jos_22:24:16; 1Ki_20:3, 1Ki_21:3).
γνσω see on 1:3 above; the transition which the verb denotes is often from a latent condition to an apparent condition, and so here, ‘prove to be,’ ‘be seen to be.’
ἀηή: as keeping His plighted word.
ψύτς in asserting that God’s promises have not been fulfilled.
κθςγγατι ‘Even as it stands written.’ The quotation is exact from LXX of Psa_51:6 [50:6]. Note the mistranslations in LXX (which St. Paul adopts), νκσς(or νκσι) for insons sis, ἐ τ κίεθι(pass.) for in iudicando or dum iudicas. The sense of the original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God’s judgement upon him. The result of his sin is that God is pronounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in His judging. St. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put upon trial and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which He has fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfilment.
ὅω ἄ: ἄ points to an unexpressed condition, ‘in case a decision is given.’
δκιθς ‘that thou mightest be pronounced righteous’ by the judgement of mankind; see p. 30 f. above, and compare Mat_11:19 κὶἐιαώηἡσφαἀὸτνἔγν(v. l. τκω: cf. Luk_7:35) ατς Test. XII Patr. Sym. 6 ὅω δκιθ ἀὸτςἁατα τνψχνὑῶ. Ps. Son_2:16 ἐὼδκισ σ ὁΘό. The usage occurs repeatedly in this book; see Ryle and James ad loc.
ἐ τῖ λγι συ not ‘pleadings’ (Va.) but ‘sayings,’ i. e. the λγαjust mentioned. בprobably = ‘judicial sentence.’
νκσς like vincere, of ‘gaining a suit,’ opp. to ἡτσα: the full phrase is νκντνδκν(Eur. El. 955, &c.).
νκσς B G K L &c.; νκσι אA D E, minusc. aliq. Probably νκσι is right, because of the agreement of אA with the older types of Western Text, thus representing two great families. The reading νκσςin B apparently belongs to the small Western element in that MS., which would seem to be allied to that in G rather than to that in D. There is a similar fluctuation in MSS. of the LXX: νκσςis the reading of אB(def. A), νκσι of some fourteen cursives. The text of LXX used by St. Paul differs not seldom from that of the great uncials.
κίεθι probably not mid. (‘to enter upon trial,’ ‘go to law,’ lit. ‘get judgment for oneself’) as Mey. Go. Va. Lid., but pass. as in ver. 7 (so Vulg. Weiss Kautzsch, &c.; see the arguments from the usage of LXX and בin Kautzsch, De Vet. Test. Locis a Paulo allegatis, p. 24 n).
5. ἡἀιί ἡῶ: a general statement, including ἀιτα In like manner Θο δκισννis general, though the particular instance which St. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God to His promises.
σνσηι σνσηι(σνσάω has in N. T. two conspicuous meanings: (i) ‘to bring together’ as two persons, ‘to introduce’ or ‘commend’ to one another (e.g. Rom_16:1; 2Co_3:1; 2Co_4:2; 2Co_5:12, &c.; cf. σσαια ἐιτλί2Co_3:1); (ii) ‘to put together’ or ‘make good’ by argument, ‘to prove,’ ‘establish’ (compositis collectisque quae rem contineant argumentis aliquid doceo Fritzsche), as in Rom_5:8; 2Co_7:11; Gal_2:18 (where see Lft. and Ell.).
Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. (σνσόεν ἐανῖ, φνρῦ, ββιῦ, πρτθνι but it is strange that neither comes out clearly in the uses of the word in LXX; the second is found in Susann. 61 ἀέτσνἐὶτὺ δοπεβτς ὅισνσηε ατὺ Δνή ψυοατρσνα (Theod.).
τ ἐομν another phrase, like μ γνιο which is characteristic of this Epistle, where it occurs seven times; not elsewhere in N. T.
μ ἄιο: the form of question shows that a negative answer is expected (μ originally meant ‘Don’t say that,’ &c.).
ὁἐιέω τνὀγν most exactly, ‘the inflicter of the anger’ (Va.). The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on 1:18, 12:19.
Burton however makes ὁἐιέω strictly equivalent to a relative clause, and like a relative clause suggest a reason (‘Who visiteth’ = ‘because He visiteth’) M. and T. §428.
κτ ἄθωο λγ: a form of phrase which is also characteristic of this group of Epistles, where the eager argumentation of the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. The exact phrase recurs only in Gal_3:15; but comp. also 1Co_9:8 μ κτ ἄθωο τῦαλλ; 2Co_11:17 ὅλλ, ο κτ Κρο λλ.
6. ἐε πςκιε: St. Paul and his readers alike held as axiomatic the belief that God would judge the world. But the objection just urged was inconsistent with that belief, and therefore must fall to the ground.
ἑε: ‘since, if that were so, if the inflicting of punishment necessarily implied injustice.’ Ἐε gets the meaning ‘if so,’ ‘if not’ (‘or else’), from the context, the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated: here ἐε sc. ε ἄιο ἔτιὁἐιέω τνὀγν(cf. Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk. p. 359).
τνκσο: all mankind.
7. The position laid down in ver. 5 is now discussed from the side of man, as it had just been discussed from the side of God.
ε δ אA minusc. pauc., Vulg. cod. Boh., Jo.-Damasc., Tisch. WH. text. RV. text.; ε γρB D E G K L P &c., Vulg. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. al., WH. marg. RV. marg. The second reading may be in its origin Western.
ἀήεα the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises; ψῦμ, the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as in ver. 4).
κγ: ‘I too,’ as well as others, though my falsehood thus redounds to God’s glory. St. Paul uses the first person from motives of delicacy, just as in 1Co_4:6 he ‘transfers by a fiction’ (Dr. Field’s elegant rendering of μτσηάια to himself and his friend Apollos what really applied to his opponents.
8. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle’s mind: (i) the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever that evil may be done for the sake of good; (ii) the accusation brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil might be done for the sake of good. The single clause πισμντ κκ ἵαἔθ τ ἀαάis made to do duty for both these trains of thought, in the one case connected in idea and construction with τ ̣̣̣μ, in the other with λγυι ὄι This could be brought out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation: τ ἔικγ ὡ ἁατλς κίοα κὶ[τ] μ—κθςβαφμύεα κὶκθςφσ τνςἡᾶ λγι ὄιπισμνκτλ There is a very similar construction in vv. 25, 26, where the argument works up twice over to the same words, ες[πὸ] τνἔδιι τςδκισνςατῦ and the words which follow the second time are meant to complete both clauses, the first as well as the second. It is somewhat similar when in ch. 2 ver. 16 at once carries on and completes vv. 15 and 13.
St. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Antinomianism. What he said was, ‘The state of righteousness is not to be attained through legal works; it is the gift of God.’ He was represented as saying ‘therefore it does not matter what a man does’—an inference which he repudiates indignantly, not only here but in 6:1 ff., 15 ff.
ὧ τ κῖακτλ This points back to τ ἔικγ κίοα; the plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing; the judgement (of God) which will fall upon them is just. St. Paul does not argue the point, or say anything further about the calumny directed against himself; he contents himself with brushing away an excuse which is obviously unreal.
UNIVERSAL FAILURE TO ATTAIN TO RIGHTEOUSNESS
3:9-20. If the case of us Jews is so bad, are the Gentiles any better? No. The same accusation covers both. The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt, which is laid down in Psa_14 and graphically described in Pss. 5, 140, Psa_5:10, in Isa_59, and again in Psa_34. And if the Jew is equally guilty with the Gentile, still less can he escape punishment; for the Law which threatens him with punishment is his own. So then the whole system of Law and works done in fulfilment of Law, has proved a failure. Law can reveal sin, but not remove it.
9 To return from this digression. What inference are we to draw? Are the tables completely turned? Are we Jews not only equalled but surpassed (ποχμθ passive) by the Gentiles? Not at all. There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles. The indictment which we have just brought against both (in 1:18-32, 2:17-29) proves that they are equally under the dominion of sin. 10The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. Thus in Psa_14 [here with some abridgment and variation], the Psalmist complains that he cannot find a single righteous man, 11 that there is none to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth, none to show any desire for the knowledge of God. 12 They have all (he says) turned aside from the straight path. They are like milk that has turned sour and bad. There is not so much as a single right-doer among them. 13 This picture of universal wickedness may be completed from such details as those which are applied to the wicked in Psa_5:9 [exactly quoted]. Just as a grave stands yawning to receive the corpse that will soon fill it with corruption, so the throat of the wicked is only opened to vent forth depraved and lying speech. Their tongue is practised in fraud. Or in Psa_140:3 [also exactly quoted]: the poison-bag of the asp lies under their smooth and flattering lips. 14 So, as it is described in Psa_10:7, throat, tongue, and lips are full of nothing but cursing and venom. 15 Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX of Isa_59:7, Isa_59:8]: They run with eager speed to commit murder. 16 Their course is marked by ruin and misery. 17 With smiling paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. 18 To sum up the character of the ungodly in a word [from Psa_36(35):1 LXX]: The fear of God supplies no standard for their actions.
19 Thus all the world has sinned. And not even the Jew can claim exemption from the consequences of his sin. For when the Law of Moses denounces those consequences it speaks especially to the people to whom it was given. By which it was designed that the Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse, and that all mankind might be held accountable to God.
20 This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By works of Law (i. e. by an attempted fulfilment of Law) no mortal may hope to be declared righteous in God’s sight. For the only effect of Law is to open men’s eyes to their own sinfulness, not to enable them to do better. That method, the method of works, has failed. A new method must be found.
9. τ ον ‘What then [follows]?’ Not with ποχμθ, because that would require in reply οδνπνω, not ο πνω.
ποχμθ is explained in three ways: as intrans. in the same sense as the active ποχ, as trans. with its proper middle force, and as passive. (i) ποχμθ mid. = ποχμν(praecellimus eos Vulg.; and so the majority of commentators, ancient and modern, Ἄαπρσὸ ἔοε πρ τὺ Ἔλνς Euthym.-Zig. ἔοέ τ πένκὶεδκμῦε ο Ἰυαο; Theoph. ‘Do we think ourselves better?’ Gif.). But no examples of this use are to be found, and there seems to be no reason why St. Paul should not have written ποχμν the common form in such contexts. (ii) ποχμθ trans. in its more ordinary middle sense, ‘put forward as an excuse or pretext’ (‘Do we excuse ourselves?’ RV. marg., ‘Have we any defence?’ Mey. Go.). But then the object must be expressed, and as we have just seen τ ονcannot be combined with ποχμθ because of ο πνω. (iii) ποχμθ passive, ‘Are we excelled?’ ‘Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles)?’ a rare use, but still one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. Field, Ot. Norv. III ad loc.). Some of the best scholars (e. g. Lightfoot, Field) incline to this view, which has been adopted in the text of RV. The principal objection to it is from the context. St. Paul has just asserted (ver. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile: how then does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew? The answer would seem to be that a different kind of ‘advantage’ is meant. The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is historic, it lies in the possession of superior privileges; the practical equality of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition (ch. 2:17-29 balanced against ch. 1:18-32). In this latter respect St. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places (2:25-29). A few scholars (Olsh. Va.Lid.) take ποχμθ as pass., but give it the same sense as ποχμν ‘Are we (Jews) preferred (to the Gentiles) in the sight of God?’
ποχμθ: v. l. ποαέοε πρσό D* G, 31; Antiochene Fathers (Chrys. [ed. Field] Theodt. Severianus), also Orig.-lat. Ambrstr. (some MSS. but not the best, tenemus amplius): a gloss explaining ποχ in the same way as Vulg. and the later Greek commentators quoted above. A L read ποχμθ.
ο πνω. Strictly speaking ο should qualify πνω, ‘not altogether,’ ‘not entirely,’ as in 1Co_5:10 ο πνω τῖ προςτῦκσο τύο: but in some cases, as here, πνω qualifies ο, ‘altogether not,’ ‘entirely not,’ i.e. ‘not at all’ (nequaquam Vulg., οδμςTheoph.). Compare the similar idiom in ο πν; and see Win. Gr. lxi. 5.
ποταάεα in the section 1:18-2:29.
ὑʼἁατα. In Biblical Greek ὑόwith dat. has given place entirely to ὑόwith acc. Mat_8:9 ἄθωό εμ ὑὸἐοσα is a strong case. The change has already taken place in LXX; e.g Deu_33:3 πνε ο ἡισέο ὑὸτςχῖά συ κὶοτιὑὸσ εσ.
10. The long quotation which follows, made up of a number of passages taken from different parts of the O. T., and with no apparent break between them, is strictly in accordance with the Rabbinical practice. ‘A favourite method was that which derived its name from the stringing together of beads (Charaz), when a preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch, strung on to it another and like-sounding, or really similar, from the Prophets and the Hagiographa’ (Edersheim, Life and Times, &c. i. 449). We may judge from this instance that the first quotation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch—though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the O. T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Rom_9:25 f.; 27 f.; 11:26 f.; 34 f.; 12:19 f.; 2Co_6:16. Here the passages are from Psa_14[13]:1-3 (= Psa_53:1-3 [52:2-4]), ver. 1 free, ver. 2 abridged, ver. 3 exact; 5:9 [10] exact; 140:3 [139:4] exact: 10:7 [9:28] free; Isa_59:7, Isa_59:8 abridged; Psa_36 [35]. 1. The degree of relevance of each of these passages to the argument is indicated by the paraphrase: see also the additional note at the end of ch. 10.
As a whole this conglomerate of quotations has had a curious history. The quotations in N.T. frequently react upon the text of O.T., and they have done so here: vv. 13-18 got imported bodily into Psa_14 [13 LXX] as an appendage to ver. 4 in the ‘common’ text of the LXX (ἡκιή i.e. the unrevised text current in the time of Origen). They are still found in Codd. א B R U and many cursive MSS. of LXX (om. א a A), though the Greek commentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. From interpolated MSS. such as these they found their way into Lat.-Vet., and so into Jerome’s first edition of the Psalter (the ‘Roman’), also into his second edition (the ‘Gallican,’ based upon Origen’s Hexapla), though marked with an obelus after the example of Origen. The obelus dropped out, and they are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms, which is practically the Gallican. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale’s Bible (a.d. 1535); from thence into Matthew’s (Rogers’) Bible, which in the Psalter reproduces Coverdale (a.d. 1537), and also into the ‘Great Bible’ (first issued by Cromwell in 1539, and afterwards with a preface by Cranmer, whence it also bears the name of Cranmer’s Bible, in 1540). The Psalter of the Great Bible was incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer, in which it was retained as being familiar and smoother to sing, even in the later revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 1611. The editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale, who put an * to the passages found in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. These marks however had the same fate which befell the obeli of Jerome. They were not repeated in the Prayer-Book; so that English Churchmen still read the interpolated verses in Psa_14 with nothing to distinguish them from the rest of the text. Jerome himself was well aware that these verses were no part of the Psalm. In his commentary on Isaiah, lib. 16, he notes that St. Paul quoted Isa_59:7, Isa_59:8 in Ep. to Rom., and he adds, quod multi ignorantes, de tertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant, qui versus [σίο] in editione Vulgata [i. e. the κιήof the LXX] additi sunt et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron. Opp. ed. Migne, iv. 601; comp. the preface to the same book, ibid. col. 568 f.; also the newly discovered Commentarioli in Psalmos, ed. Morin, 1895, p. 24 f.).
10. Some have thought that this verse was not part of the quotation, but a summary by St. Paul of what follows. It does indeed present some variants from the original, δκιςfor πινχητττ and οδ εςfor οκἔτνἕςἑό. In the LXX this clause is a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. 3. St. Paul there keeps to his text; but we cannot be surprised that in the opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which more directly suggests the connexion with his main argument. The δκις‘shall live by faith’; but till the coming of Christianity there was no true δκιςand no true faith. The verse runs too much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a quotation, though it is handled in the free and bold manner which is characteristic of St. Paul.
11. οκἔτνὁσνῶ: non est qui intelligat (rather than qui intelligit); Anglicè ‘there is none to understand.’ [But A B G, and perhaps Latt. Orig.-lat. Ambrstr., WH. text read σνῶ, as also (B)C WH. text ἐζτν without the art. after LXX. This would = non est intelligens, non est requirens Deum (Vulg.) ‘There is no one of understanding, there is no inquirer after God.’]
ὁσνῶ: on the form see Win. Gr. §xiv, 16 (Exo_8; xiv, 3 E. T.); Hort, Intr. Notes on Orthog. p. 167; also for the accentuation, Fri. p. 174 f. Both forms, σνέ and σνω are found, and either accentuation, σνῶ or σνω, may be adopted: probably the latter is to be preferred; cf. ἤι from ἀί Mar_1:34, Mar_11:16.
12. ἅα ‘one and all.’
ἠριθσν ב= ‘to go bad,’ ‘become sour,’ like milk; comp. the ἀρῖςδῦο of Mat_25:30.
πιν(sine artic.) A B G &c. WH. text.
χητττ = ‘goodness’ in the widest sense, with the idea of ‘utility’ rather than specially of ‘kindness,’ as in 2:4.
ἔςἑό: cp. the Latin idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. literally usque ad unum). B 67**, WH. marg. omit the second οκἔτν[οκἔτνπινχητττ ἔςἑό]. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. In ver. 14 B 17 add ατν(ὧ τ σόαατν corresponding to ατῦin B’s text of Psa_10:7 [9:28].
13. τφς…ἐοιῦα. The LXX of Psa_5:9 [10] corresponds pretty nearly to Heb. The last clause = rather linguam suam blandam reddunt (poliunt), or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur (Kautzsch, p. 34): ‘their tongue do they make smooth’ Cheyne; ‘smooth speech glideth from their tongue’ De Witt.
ἐοιῦα: Win. Gr. §xiii, 14 (Exo_8; xiii, 2 f. E. T.). The termination -σν extended from imperf. and 2nd aor. of verbs in -μ to verbs in -ω is widely found; it is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek, but by no means confined to it; it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions, and is called by one grammarian a ‘Boeotian’ form, as by others ‘Alexandrian.’
ἰςἀπδν Psa_140:3 [139:4]. The position of the poison-bag of the serpent is rightly described. The venom is more correctly referred to the bite (as in Num_21:9; Pro_23:32), than to the forked tongue (Job_20:16): see art. ‘Serpent’ in D. B.
14.Psa_10:7 somewhat freely from LXX [9:28]: ο ἀᾶ τ σόαατῦγμικὶπκίςκὶδλυ St. Paul retains the rel. but changes it into the plural: σόαατνB 17, Cypr., WH. marg.
πκί: בmore lit. = fraudes.
15-17. This quotation of Isa_59:7, Isa_59:8 is freely abridged from the LXX; and as it is also of some interest from its bearing upon the text of the LXX used by St. Paul, it may be well to give the original and the quotation side by side.
Rom_3:15-17. Isa_59:7, Isa_59:8.
ὀεςο πδςατνἐχα αμ·σνρμακὶτλιωί ἐ τῖ ὁοςατν κὶὁὸ ερνςοκἔνσν ο δ πδςατν[ἐὶπνρα τέοσ] τχνὶἐχα αμ [κὶο δαοιμὶατνδαοιμὶἀὸφνν σνρμακὶτλιωί ἐ τῖ ὁοςατνκὶὁὸ ερνςοκοδσ [κὶοκἔτ κίι ἐ τῖ ὁοςατν
αμ ἀατο Theodotion, and probably also Aquila and Symmachus. [From the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. of LXX.]
ἀρνν(for ἀὸφνν A א οδσ א B Q*, &c.: ἔνσνA Q1 marg. (Q = Cod. Marchalianus, XII Holmes) minusc. aliq.
19. What is the meaning of this verse? Does it mean that the passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (ὁνμς= O. T.; νμντνπλινγαὴ ὀοάε, ἧ μρςτ ποηιάEuthym.-Zig.), and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the Gentiles? So most commentators. Or does it mean that the guilt of the Jews being now proved, as they sinned they must also expect punishment, the Law (ὁνμς= the Pentateuch) affirming the connexion between sin and punishment. So Gif. Both interpretations give a good sense. [For though (i) does not strictly prove that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty, this was really the main point which needed proving, because the Jews were apt to explain away the passages which condemned them, and held that—whatever happened to the Gentiles—they would escape.] The question really turns upon the meaning of ὁνμς It is urged, (i) that there is only a single passage in St. Paul where ὁνμςclearly = O. T. (1Co_14:21, a quotation of Isa_28:11): compare however Joh_10:34 (= Psa_82:6), 15:25 (= Psa_35:19); (ii) that in the corresponding clause, τῖ ἐ τ νμ must = the Law, in the narrower sense; (iii) that in ver. 21 the Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets.
Yet these arguments are hardly decisive: for (i) the evidence is sufficient to show that St. Paul might have used ὁνμςin the wider sense; for this one instance is as good as many; and (ii) we must not suppose that St. Paul always rigidly distinguished which sense he was using; the use of the word in one sense would call up the other (cf. Note on ὁθντςin ch. 5:12).
Oltr. also goes a way of his own, but makes ὁνμς= Law in the abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience, and for the Jew the law of Moses), which is contrary to the use of ὁνμς
λγι…λλῖ λγι calls attention to the substance of what is spoken, λλῖ to the outward utterance; cf. esp. McClellan, Gospels, p. 383 ff.
φαῇ cf. ἀαοόηο 1:20, 2:1; the idea comes up at each step in the argument.
ὑόιο not exactly ‘guilty before God,’ but ‘answerable to God.’ ὑόιο takes gen. of the penalty; dat. of the person injured to whom satisfaction is due (τνδπαίνὑόιο ἔτ τ βαθνιPlato, Legg. 846 B). So here: all mankind has offended against God, and owes Him satisfaction. Note the use of a forensic term.
20. δόι ‘because,’ not ‘therefore,’ as AV. (see on 1:19). Mankind is liable for penalties as against God, because there is nothing else to afford them protection. Law can open men’s eyes to sin, but cannot remove it. Why this is so is shown in 7:7 ff.
δκιθστι ‘shall be pronounced righteous,’ certainly not ‘shall be made righteous’ (Lid.); the whole context (ἵαπνσοα φαῇὑόιο, ἐώινατῦ has reference to a judicial trial and verdict.
πσ σρ: man in his weakness and frailty (1Co_1:29; 1Pe_1:24).
ἐίνσς ‘clear knowledge’; see on 1:28, 32.
THE NEW SYSTEM
3:21-26. Here then the new order of things comes in. In it is offered a Righteousness which comes from God but embraces man, by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the part of God. This righteousness, (i) though attested by the Sacred Books, is independent of any legal system (ver. 21); (ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ, and is as wide as man’s need (vv. 22, 23); (iii) it is made possible by the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (vv. 24, 25); which Sacrifice at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin and gives the most decisive expression to His righteousness (vv. 25, 26).
21It is precisely such a method which is offered in Christianity. We have seen what is the state of the world without it. But now, since the coming of Christ, the righteousness of God has asserted itself in visible concrete form, but so as to furnish at the same time a means of acquiring righteousness to man—and that in complete independence of law, though the Sacred Books which contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to it. 22This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn upon works but on faith, i. e. on ardent attachment and devotion to Jesus Messiah. And it is therefore no longer confined to any particular people like the Jews, but is thrown open without distinction to all, on the sole condition of believing, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. 23The universal gift corresponds to the universal need. All men alike have sinned; and all alike feel themselves far from the bright effulgence of God’s presence. 24Yet estranged as they are God accepts them as righteous for no merit or service of theirs, by an act of His own free favour, the change in their relation to Him being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the Death of Christ Jesus. 25When the Messiah suffered upon the Cross it was God Who set Him there as a public spectacle, to be viewed as a Mosaic sacrifice might be viewed by the crowds assembled in the courts of the Temple. The shedding of His Blood was in fact a sacrifice which had the effect of making propitiation or atonement for sin, an effect which man must appropriate through faith. The object of the whole being by this public and decisive act to vindicate the righteousness of God. In previous ages the sins of mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment or atonement: 26but this long forbearance on the part of God had in view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which He purposed to enact when the hour should come as now it has come, so as to reveal Himself in His double character as at once righteous Himself and pronouncing righteous, or accepting as righteous, the loyal follower of Jesus.
21. νν δ: ‘now,’ under the Christian dispensation. Mey. De W. Oltr. Go. and others contend for the rendering ‘as it is,’ on the ground that the opposition is between two states, the state under Law and the state without Law. But here the two states or relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order of time; so that νν may well have its first and most obvious meaning, which is confirmed by the parallel passages, Rom_16:25, Rom_16:26 μσηίυ…φνρθνο …νν Eph_2:12, Eph_2:13 νν δ …ἐεήηεἐγς Col_1:26, Col_1:27 μσήιντ ἀοερμέο …ννδ ἐαεώη 2Ti_1:9, 2Ti_1:10 χρντνδθῖα …πὸχόω αωίνφνρθῖα δ νν Heb_9:26 νν δ ἅα ἐὶσνεεᾳτναώω …πφνρτι It may be observed (i) that the N. T. writers constantly oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian dispensations to each other as periods (comp. in addition to the passages already enumerated Act_17:30; Gal_3:23, Gal_3:25, Gal_3:4:3, Gal_3:4; Heb_1:1); and (ii) that φνρῦθιis constantly used with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit_1:3 κιοςἰίι, 1Pe_1:20 ἐʼἐχτυτνχόω). The leading English commentators take this view.
An allusion of Tertullian’s makes it probable that Marcion retained this verse; evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter, and it is probable that he cut out the whole of ch. 4, along with most other references to the history of Abraham (Tert. on Gal_4:21-26, Adv. Marc. v. 4).
χρςνμυ ‘apart from law,’ ‘independently of it,’ not as a subordinate system growing out of Law, but as an alternative for Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom_10:4).
δκισν Θο: see on ch. 1:17. St. Paul goes on to define his meaning. The righteousness which he has in view is essentially the righteousness of God; though the aspect in which it is regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man, that condition is the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness, working its way to larger realization amongst men. One step in this realization, the first great objective step, is the Sacrificial Death of Christ for sin (ver. 25); the next step is the subjective apprehension of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer (ver. 22). Under the old system the only way laid down for man to attain to righteousness was by the strict performance of the Mosaic Law; now that heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at the same time more effective method is substituted, the method of attachment to a Divine Person.
πφνρτι Contrast the completed φνρσςin Christ and the continued ἀοάυι in the Gospel (ch. 1:16): the verb φνρῦθιis regularly used for the Incarnation with its accompaniments and sequents as outstanding facts of history prepared in the secret counsels of God and at the fitting moment ‘manifested’ to the sight of men; so, of the whole process of the Incarnation, 1Ti_3:16; 2Ti_1:10; 1Pe_1:20; 1Jn_3:5, 1Jn_3:8: of the Atonement, Heb_9:26: of the risen Christ, Mar_16:12, Mar_16:14; Joh_21:14: of the future coming to Judgement, 1Pe_5:4; 1Jn_2:28. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of the manifestation of Divine ‘righteousness’ are 2Ti_1:10, which speaks of a like manifestation of Divine ‘grace,’ and 1Jn_1:2, which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the principle of ‘life.’
μρυομν κ τ λ another instance of the care with which St. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary to the old, but rather a development which was duly foreseen and provided for: cf. Rom_1:2, Rom_3:31, the whole of ch. 4, 9:25-33; 10:16-21; 11:1-10, 26-29; 15:8-12; 16:26 &c.
22. δ turns to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness which the Apostle here wishes to bring out; it is righteousness apprehended by faith in Christ and embracing the body of believers. The particle thus introduces a nearer definition, but in itself only marks the transition in thought which here (as in ch. 9:30; 1Co_2:6; Gal_2:2; Php_2:8) happens to be from the general to the particular.
πσ&eps