1What advantage then hath [What, then, is the advantage of] the Jew? or what profit is there [what is the benefit] of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, [First, indeed,] because that unto them were committed [they 3—i.e., the Jews—were entrusted with,
ἐðéóôåýèçóáí
] the oracles of God. For what [What, then,] if some did not believe [were faithless]? shall their unbelief [faithlessness, or, unfaithfulness] make the faith of God without effect4[destroy, or, nullify the faithfulness of God]? God forbid: [Let it not be!] yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, “That thou mightest [mayest] be justified in thy sayings, and mightest [mayest] overcome when thou art judged” [Psa_51:4]. 5But if our unrighteousness commend [doth establish] the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance [who is inflicting, or, bringing down, the wrath,
ὁ ἐðéöÝñùí ôὴí ὀñãÞí
]? (I speak as a man [after the manner of men,
÷áôὰ ἄíèñùðïí
].) 6God forbid: [Let it not be!] for then how shall God judge the world? 7For [But] if the truth [covenant-faithfulness] of God hath more abounded through my lie [was made the more conspicuous by means of my falsehood, unfaithfulness] unto his glory [Rom_5:20]; why yet [still, any longer] am I also judged as 8a sinner? And not rather, (as we be [are] slanderously [blasphemously] reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation [condemnation, judgment] is just. 9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise [Not at all]: for we have before proved [charged] both Jews and Gentiles, that they are 10[to be] all under sin; As it is written, “There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there 13is none that doeth good, no, not one” [Psa_14:1-3]. “Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps Isaiah 14 under their lips” [Psa_5:9; Psa_140:3]. “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”15[Psa_10:7]: “Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17And the way of peace have they not known” 18[Isa_59:7-8]: “There is no fear of God before their eyes” [Psa_36:1].19Now 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 20become guilty before God. [,] Therefore [because] by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified [by works of the law no flesh (i.e., no person) shall (can) be declared righteous] in his sight: for [. For] by the law is the knowledge of sin [comes a knowledge of sin].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Survey.—1. The use of circumcision. Its two-fold operation, according to the conflicting conduct of the Jews. Its spiritual significance, by which the Gentile can be a Jew, and the Jew a Gentile; Rom_3:25-29. 2. The objective advantage of historical Judaism. The authority of the Word of God, which remains established by virtue of God’s faithfulness to His covenant, though many of the Jews become unfaithful. By this unfaithfulness they must even cause the glory of God’s faithfulness to abound. Nevertheless, the unfaithful are responsible for their guilt, and the application of the sin of unfaithfulness to the glory of God would be a wicked transgression; Rom_3:1 to Rom_8:3. The subjective equality of the Jews with the Gentiles. In a subjective relation, the former have no advantage, since, according to the witnesses of the Old Testament, they are in a severe condemnation. The conclusion: All the world stands guilty before God; Rom_3:9-20.—The whole section contains, briefly, the three points: 1. Circumcision (Judaism) is conditionally either an advantage, or not; 2. as far as the designed mission of Judaism was concerned, it was an advantage; 3. from the conduct of the Jews, as opposed to the righteousness of God, it was no advantage.
First Paragraph (Rom_3:25-29)
Rom_3:25. For circumcision indeed profiteth (or availeth). After the Apostle has portrayed the corruption of the Jews, he comes to the objection of Jewish theology, or also to the argument from the theocratic standpoint: What, then, is the prerogative of circumcision? Does not circumcision, as God’s covenant promise, protect and sustain the Jews? Answer: The advantage of circumcision is (according to the nature of a covenant) conditional. It is actually available (not merely useful); it accomplishes its complete work when the circumcised keep the law. Plainly, circumcision here falls under the idea of a covenant. It is a mark of the covenant of the law, by which God will fulfil His promise to the Jew on condition that the Jew keep the law (see Exo_19:7-8; Deu_26:16). But afterward the circumcision of God is made prominent as God’s institution; it remains in force, though a part of the Jews become faithless to the covenant relation. But this rests upon its inner nature or symbolical significance, as a promise and pledge of the circumcision of the heart; that is, a continual sincerity and heartiness in the fulfilment of the law (Deu_10:16; Deu_30:6; Jer_4:4; Col_2:11; Act_7:51 : “Uncircumcised in heart and ears”). The consequence is, that the one who is circumcised is received into the people of the covenant. But the idea of the people of the covenant gradually becomes more profound, just as that of the covenant and the new birth itself, as the time of their fulfilment in the New Testament approaches. It is from this point of view that the following discussion must also be explained.—It is of use—that is, it accomplishes what it should accomplish according to its original idea.—If thou keep the law. Here the question is plainly not concerning the perfect fulfilment of the law in the Jewish sense (Tholuck); which is opposed by Rom_3:26; Rom_3:15. Nor can the Apostle anticipate here so soon the New Testament standpoint of faith, according to which believers alone, including those from the Gentiles, have the real circumcision. He therefore means the fulfilment of the law according to the measure of sincerity and heartiness by which either Jew or Gentile is prepared to obey the truth of the gospel (Rom_3:7-8).—But if thou art a transgressor. One of the mystical expositions of the Pentateuch, Shamoth Rabbah (from about the 6th century), expresses the same thought in the same figurative drapery: “The heretics and the ungodly in Israel should not say, ‘Because we are circumcised, we do not descend to the Gehenna.’ What does God do? He sends His angels, and brings back their uncircumcision, so that they descend to Gehenna” (Tholuck). The expressions transgressor and uncircumcision were especially terrible to the Jews. Uncircumcision was the peculiar characteristic of the impurity of heathendom, as circumcision denoted the consecration and holiness of the Jewish people. But here it is stated, not merely that uncircumcision takes the place of circumcision, but that circumcision actually becomes uncircumcision. That is, the unbelieving Jew becomes virtually a Gentile. [What is here said of Jewish circumcision, is equally applicable to Christian baptism: it is a great blessing to the believer, as a sign and seal of the New Covenant, and a title to all its privileges, but it avails nothing, yea, it is turned into a curse, by the violation of the duties implied in this covenant.—P. S.]
Rom_3:26. Therefore, if the uncircumcision. The Apostle here uses the Jew’s mode of expression.
Á÷ñïâõóôßá
, uncircumcision, stands in the first clause of the sentence as an abstract term for the concrete
ἀ÷ñüâõóôïò
, uncircumcised; hence the
áὐôïῦ
[i.e., of such an
ἀ÷ñüâõóôïò
] after the second
ἀ÷ñïâõóôßá
).—
Ôὰ äé÷áéþìáôáôïῦíüìïõ
. The requirements of the law in essential matters, as
ôὰ ôïῦ íüì
., Rom_3:14; as they can be observed by the Gentile also. [The moral requirements, not the ceremonial, among which circumcision was the very first. The E. V. here mistakes
äé÷áßùìá
for
äé÷áéïóýíç
.—P. S.] Be counted for circumcision. He shall be accepted as a Jew who is obedient to the law (Mat_8:11; 1Co_7:19; Gal_5:6). The clause is supposed by Philippi to apply to the Proselytes of the Gate. But these have ceased to be Gentiles in the full sense of the word. The point here throughout is not concerning the form, but the disposition. Fritzsche refers the future [
ëïãéóèÞóåôáé
] to the final judgment; but Meyer, and others, regard it as applying to the abstract future: “As often as the question concerns justification.” Assuredly the Apostle has already in mind the definite future, the day when the gospel is preached.
Rom_3:27. And he who is uncircumcised by nature [
ἐ÷ öýóåù ò
belongs to
ἀ÷ñïâõóôßá
, not to
ôåëïῦóá
] will judge thee [
÷ñéíåῖ
, rise up in judgment by his example; comp. Mat_12:41-42, where
÷áôá÷ñßíù
is used]. Analogies to this bold word can be found in the Gospels, Mat_3:9; Mat_8:11; Mat_12:41, and others; and even back in the Old Testament. The sentence is read by many as a question, as the previous verse; while the
ïὐ÷ß
is again supplied in thought before
÷ñéíåῖ
(Rückert, Tholuck [in the earlier editions, but not in the fifth.—P. S.], Lachmann, and others). On the contrary, as a declaration, it is a definite answer and conclusion to Rom_3:26 (Luther, Erasmus, De Wette, Meyer).—Uncircumcised by nature. The Gentile as he is by virtue of his natural birth, as is the Jew no less. The
ἐ÷öýóåùò
is erroneously made by Koppe to relate to
ôὸí íüì
.
ôåëïῦóá
; still more artificial is Olshausen’s explanation: “The Gentile world observing the law without higher aid.”—Who with the letter [
äéὰ ãñἀì ìáôïò
]. The
äéÜ
reminds us of the declaration in Rom_7:11 : “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me” (Œcumenius, Beza, and others). Yet it should be urged here, as Meyer properly remarks, that such a Jew, in spite of the law, transgresses it. But that he becomes a transgressor (
ðáñáâÜôçò
), and not merely a sinner (
ἁìáñôùëüò
), rests upon the fact that he is in possession and knowledge of the law (Rom_5:13-14). The expression
ãñÜììá
defines the law in its specific character as written law [not in a disparaging sense, in opposition to
ðíåῦìá
]; circumcision (
ðåñéôïìÞ
) is the appropriate obligation to the same.
Rom_3:28. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly. We here have a succession of brief utterances (breviloquentiœ). Meyer translates: “For not he who is a Jew externally, is a [genuine] Jew.” This means, in complete expression (according to De Wette and others): “Not the one who is a Jew externally is a Jew, that is, is on that account already a Jew internally, or a true Jew.” Thus, also, the second clause of the verse should be understood: Neither is the circumcision which is external in the flesh, genuine circumcision; the external sign is not the reality: it is the symbolical mask of the reality. Tholuck: “Mar_12:33, as well as other examples, prove that this view was not unknown to the Scribes.” Yet even this, and the expression quoted from the Talmud—‘The Jew consists in the innermost parts of the heart’—is far from resembling this Pauline antithesis.
Rom_3:29. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly. Explanations: 1. “He who is internally a Jew is a Jew; and the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, is circumcision” (De Wette, Tholuck, with Beza, Este, Rückert). Here the absent predicate is in the concluding word. 2. But he who is one inwardly, is a Jew, and circumcision of the heart rests in the spirit, not in the letter (Luther, Erasmus, Fritzsche, Meyer). In the first construction, the ellipses are very strong; in the second, circumcision of the heart creates an anticipation which is at variance with the parallelism. Therefore, 3. But he is a Jew (this is brought over from the preceding verse) who is a Jew inwardly; and circumcision (likewise brought over from the preceding) is circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter. We must therefore supply
Ἰïõäáῖïò
after
ἀëëÜ
, and
ðåñéôïìÞ
after
÷áß
.—A Jew in secret,
ἐí ÷ñõðôῷ Ἰïõäáῖïò
. The true theocratic disposition—that is, the direction of legality to heartiness, truth, and reality, and thus to the New Testament. This is not quite equal in degree to
ὁ ÷ñõðôὸò ôῆò ÷áñäßáò ἄíèñùðïò
(1Pe_3:4). Circumcision of the heart; see Deu_10:16, &c.; Philo:
óýìâïëïí ἡäïíῶí ἐ÷ôïìῆò
. Circumcision of the heart does not mean “the separation of every thing immoral from the inner life” (Meyer), but the mortification or breaking of the natural selfish principle of life, by faith, as the principle of theocratic consecration and direction. [Even the Old Testament plainly teaches the spiritual import of circumcision, and demands the circumcision of the heart, without which the external ceremony is worthless; Deu_10:16; Deu_30:6; Jer_4:4; Jer 9:29; Eze_44:9; comp. Col_2:11; Php_3:2. The same may be applied to baptism, the sign and seal of regeneration.—P. S.]—In the spirit. Explanations: 1. In the Holy Spirit (Meyer, Fritzsche, Philippi [Hodge]). Incorrect, since the question is not yet concerning the Christian new birth. 2. In the spirit of man (Œcumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Reiche, and others). [Wordsworth: the inner man as opposed to the flesh.—P. S.] 3. The Divine spirit, as Rom_7:6; 2Co_3:6; the spirit which fills the heart of the true Jew (Calvin, De Wette; the true spirit of the Jewish Church coming from God; Tholuck). 4. The new principle of life wrought by God in man (Rückert). 5. When
ðíåῦìá
is placed in antithesis to
ãñÜììá
, or the life
ἐí ðíåýìáôé
to the life
ἐí ãñἀììáôé
—that is, the life in an external, slavish, contracted pursuit of the single and outward prescriptions of the law according to the letter—then by spirit we are neither to understand the Spirit of God in itself, nor the spirit of man, but the spirit as life, the spirit-form of the inward life, by which the human spirit, moves in the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God in the human spirit.—Whose praise. Explanations of the
ïὗ
: 1. neuter; cujus rei (Luther, Camerarius, Meyer: “ideal Judaism and ideal circumcision” [Wordsworth]). 2. More fitly: masculine; reference to ̓
Éïõäáῖïò
(Augustine, and others, Tholuck, De Wette [Alford, Hodge]).
ἔðáéíïò
, Joh_5:44; Joh_12:43. The expression, according to Rom_13:3 and 1Pe_2:14, is often “a judicial term” (Tholuck). The Apostle here declares not only that the genuine Jewish disposition of pious Jews and Gentiles is far exalted above every praise from below, and enjoys the approbation of God, but also that its honor comes from God, and will therefore be sanctioned by God by a judicial act—which can at last be nothing else but justification by faith. To Judah it was said, as the explanation of his name: “Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise.” But God Himself will praise this genuine spiritual Judah.
Second Paragraph, Rom_3:1-8
Rom_3:1. What then is the advantage of the Jew [
Ôß ïὖí ôὸ ðåñéóóὸíôïῦ Ἰïõäáßïõ
]? After the Apostle has shown that not only the Jews are included in the same corruption with the Gentiles, but that pious Gentiles have even an advantage over ungodly Jews, he comes to the question which would naturally be presented to him—whether, then, Israel has any peculiar prerogative, and, if so, in ,what it consists. He does not ask in the name of a Gentile Christian (Seb. Schmid), or of the Judaist, although he must take from these every occasion for accusation, but from the standpoint of the true theocracy. The advantage in the sense of profit (De Wette).—Or what is the benefit of circumcision (
ôßò ἡ ὠöÝëåéá ôῆò ðåñéôïìῆò
)? The second question does not relate merely to circumcision as, a single means of grace (De Wette). It makes the first question more precise, so far as for the Apostle the Jewish economy is different from the Old Testament in general (chap. 4; Galatians 3).
Rom_3:2. Much every way. First of all, namely. [
ðïëý
refers to both
ðåñéóóüí
and
ὠöÝëåéá
; Meyer.
÷áôὰ ðÜíôá ôñüðïí
, under every moral and religious aspect, whichever way you look at it; the opposite is
÷áô
̓
ïὐäÝíá ôñüðïí
.—P. S.] All that he could have in mind he shows in Rom_9:4. But from the outset, apart from his train of thought and purpose, he had a further object than to show the advantage that to them the
ëüãéá ôïῦ Èåïῦ
were committed. We therefore accept, with Theodoret, Calvin, Bengel, and others, that
ðñῶôïí
means here prœcipuum, or primarium illud est, first of all. Tholuck and Meyer [Alford, Hodge], on the other hand, suppose that he omitted to enumerate the other points (to which the
ìÝí
refers), and quote, as examples, Rom_1:8; 1Co_11:18.—They were intrusted with the oracles of God. According to our rendering of the
ðñῶôïí
,
ôὰ ëüãéá
(significant promulgations,
÷ñçóìïß
, words of revelation, Act_7:38; Heb_5:12; 1Pe_4:11) can by no means denote the Old Testament word of God in its general aspect (Cocceius: quidquid Deus, habuit dicendum), but this word only in the specific direction in which the most of the Jews were unbelieving in respect to it. What is meant, therefore, is not the law alone and as such (Theodoret, Œcumenius, Beza); for the law, according to Paul, was also a typical gospel (which Tholuck seems to overlook, when he says: The contents of the
ëüãéá
divide into the twofold part,
ὁ íüìïò
and at
áἱ ἐðáããåëßáé
); nor the Messianic prophecies alone (Grotius, Tholuck, Meyer), but properly both (De Wette), as one was the condition of the other, and both constituted a covenant of Jehovah with the people (Calvin, Calov [Hodge], and others). The unity of these elements lay chiefly in the patriarchal promises; and as the people of Israel were made a covenant people, these were committed to them as the oracles of God establishing the covenant, which Israel, as the servant of God, should proclaim to the nations at the proper time. [The Apostle, in calling the Old Testament Scriptures the oracles of God, clearly recognizes them as divinely inspired books. The Jewish Church was the trustee and guardian of these oracles till the coming of Christ. Now, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are committed to the guardianship of the Christian Church.—P. S.]
Ἐðéóôåýèçóáí
. They were entrusted with.
Ðéóôåýåéí ôéíé ôé
in the passive; comp. Winer, § 40, 1 [§ 39, 1, p. 244, 7th ed.; also Gal_2:7; 1Co_9:17.—P. S.] They were federally entrusted by the faithfulness of God (
ðßóôéò
, Rom_3:3) with God’s promises, or were authenticated in their faith in order that they might exercise it with fidelity to faith.
Rom_3:3. What then? If some were faithless, &c. In these words the Apostle intimates that the Jews, in the main, still have the advantage just mentioned. The statement is therefore neither an objection nor a proof, but it establishes the previous point against doubt. In view of the certain fulfilment of the Divine promise, even the mass of the apostate people is only a poor crowd of individuals, some; though these some may grammatically be many. Meyer, taking ground against Tholuck and Philippi, disputes the contemptuous and ironical character of the expression
ôéíÝò
. The contempt and irony lies, of course, not in the word, but in the idea. Unbelief has scattered and divided Israel. According to De Wette and Fritzsche, the expression has an alleviating character. Since the great mass of the unbelievers was known to the readers, the expression has rather a palpable sharpness. Meyer’s translation: “If many did refuse to believe (Glaube), their unbelief (Unglaube) will not annul the credibility (Glaubhaftigkeit) of God,” expresses the correspondence of the different designations, but it is not satisfactory to the sense. The Apostle forces us, by the
ðßóôéò Èåïῦ
, to bring into prominence here the moral force of
ἀðéóôßá
; and the assertion of Meyer, that
ἀðéóôåῖí
and
ἀðéóôßá
mean always, in the New Testament, unbelief, not unfaithfulness, rests upon a false alternative. Köllner refers the
ὰðéóôßá
to the unfaithfulness of the Jews in the ante-Christian time. De Wette likewise: “They have been unfaithful in keeping the covenant (Theodoret, Œcumenius, Calvin, and others); not, they have been unbelieving toward the promises and the gospel (Tholuck, Olshausen, Meyer).” This view is very strange, since he correctly observes that in the word
ἀðéóôåῖí
there lie two meanings; as
ðßóôéò
is at the same time fidelity and faith. Meyer’s objection to De Wette is equally strange: “
ôéíÝò
would be altogether unsuited, for the very reason that it would not be true. All were disobedient and unfaithful.” This is against history and the declarations of the Bible (see the discourse of Stephen, Acts 7.). If we distinguish between the ideas, to be a, sinner and to be an apostate, then it follows that, according to the Scriptures, the numerical majority of apostates was always offset by a dynamical majority of persons faithful to the covenant, by whom the covenant was continued on the ground of the
ðßóôéò Èåïῦ
; and it would have been very strange if Paul, in view of this oft-repeated history, which was first really consummated in his time, should have quite ignored the present. But as
ἐðßóôåõóáí
elsewhere (for example, Joh_8:30) means, they became believers, so is
ἠðßóôçóáí
here, they have become unbelieving, not, they have been. The
ð ßóôéò
of God is His fidelity; His fidelity to the covenant certainly involves “credibility.” (2Ti_2:13;
ðéóôὸò ὁ Èåüò
, 1Co_1:9; 1Co_10:13, &c.)
Rom_3:4. Let it not be,
ìὴ ãÝíïéôï
. [Comp. Textual Note6.] This expression of impassioned repulsion [solemn and intense deprecation], also common to the later Greeks, is, in the mouth of the Hebrew (
äָìִéìָä
, ad profana), at the same time an expression of a religious or moral repugnance or aversion. Therefore the Apostle repels the thought, as if the
ôéíÝò
could annul the
ðßóôéò
of God, and therefore also nullify the realization of the eternal covenant of grace in the heart of Israel and in a New Testament people of God.—But let it be: God (is) true, but every man false. [Lange: So aber sei’s: Gott ist wahrhaftig, jeder Mensch aber falsch.] Since
ãÝíïéôï
relates to one sentence, the antithetical
ãéíÝóèù
must relate to the sentence which offsets it, and must be marked, as announcing a declaration, by a colon. According to Meyer and De Wette, it means logice
öáíåñïýóèù
, or
ἀðïäåé÷íýóèù
(Theophylact). [Tholuck prefers
ὁìïëïãåßóèù
as equivalent.] But then the term would have been unfitly chosen. Koppe explains: Much rather let it be (viehlmehr so sei es). Meyer objects that in this case we should expect
ôïῦôï
or
ôü
as article before the whole sentence, and remarks, that Paul did not design to introduce any sentence from the Old Testament. But Paul can nevertheless make use of a sentence of his own on the future of Israel, and the want of the
ôü
does not outweigh the consideration that the
ãéíÝóèù
, as the antithesis of
ìὴ ãÝíïéôï
, requires a formal declaration. Moreover, Psa_116:11 (all men are liars) furnished already one half, and the connection the other half of the declaration. This point was to be unfolded in all its amplitude in the history of the New Testament. See 2Ti_2:13. [I prefer to connect
ãéíÝóèù
) (Paul does not say,
ἔóôù
) with
èåüò
, and to take it in the subjective sense: Let God become, i.e., be seen and acknowledged, even by His enemies, as true, whatever be the consequences. So also the E. V. and the best English commentators. The parallel, 2Ti_2:13, is striking: “If we are unfaithful (
ἀðéóôïῦìåí
), yet He abideth faithful (
ðéóôüò
): He cannot deny Himself.” Comp. also the phrase: fiat justitia, pereat mundus.—P. S.]—God is true [according to Dr. Lange’s view, which disconnects
èåüò
from
ãéíÝóèù
]. According to Tholuck,
ἀëÞèåéá
here comprehends practical and theoretical truth; in opposition to what he denotes as the usual exposition, that the Apostle expresses the wish that God would reveal Himself continually as true and faithful (according to Cocceius, in the counsels of his plan of salvation). If the question is on the truth of God in reference to the apparent collision between the Old and New Testaments, then the sense must be that even in this powerful antithesis, which to the view of man appears to be an irreconcilable contradiction, God will remain consistent with Himself, and therefore be truthful and faithful (see 2Co_1:20; Rev_3:14; the name Jehovah). All men are liars so far as they are sinners (sin = lie); yet unbelief is emphatically a lie (Joh_8:44), since, with its rejection of the truth, it becomes obedient to falsehood, and is implicated in the grossest self-contradictions (see Rom_2:21-23). Unbelief is not only a characteristic of apostates, but also a tendency and manifold fault of believers; and so far all men are liars through unbelief. Whenever the covenant between God and man is shaken or broken, absolute faithfulness is always found on God’s side; He is a rock (Deu_32:31, &c.), while all the vibrations, as well as all the breaches of faithfulness, are on the side of men. Also, in Psa_116:11, all men are represented as liars, in opposition to the faithfulness of God; and by troubling believers they oppose faith.
As it is written (Psa_51:4).—The application of the passage quoted from the Psalms gives evidence of the most profound insight. The original, according to Hupfeld’s translation, reads thus:
“To Thee alone I have sinned,
And done what is wicked in Thy sight.
In order that Thou mayest be just in Thy sayings,
Pure in Thy judging.”
The Septuagint translates, “In order that Thou mayest be acknowledged just (
äé÷áéùèῇò
) in Thy words (in Thy sayings), and mayest conquer (
íé÷Þóῃò
, instead of
úִּæְëֶּä
) in Thy
÷ñßíåóèáé
(
áְּùָׁôְèֶêָ
).” Paul quotes from the Septuagint. The sense of the original text is, that David placed himself before the judgment of God and His revelation. Viewed according to the custom of Oriental despots, Nathan had condemned him too harshly; but when he regarded his sin in all its depths as a sin against God, and before His eyes, he perceived the justice of the prophet’s charge, and the holiness of his judicial declaration of the guilt of death. The translation of the Septuagint, “that Thou mayest be justified, declared just” [
äé÷áéù
̣
èῇò
for the Hebrew
úִּöְãַּ÷
], is exegetical. [In using the word
äé÷áéïῖí
here evidently, like the hiphil of
öã÷
, in a declaratory sense (for God is just and cannot be made just, but only declared or acknowledged as just), Paul furnishes us the key to the proper understanding of his doctrine of justification by faith, see below, Rom_3:28.—P. S.] The change
íé÷Þóῃò
, &c., is a periphrasis. “Thou mayest be pure in Thy judgment,” means properly, “Thou wilt be recognized as pure; therefore Thou overcomest, since Thou wilt be justified in Thy judgment.” The Septuagint has amplified the slight antithesis, “in Thy sayings, in Thy judgment,” so that the distinction can be drawn between God’s word and His judgment. The chief point is the canon: If God is to be thoroughly known and recognized as just and holy in His word and in His judgment, then must sin, which stands committed against Him, be known in all its breadth and depth. The defect in our knowledge here is what casts a shade in part upon God’s word and in part upon. His judicial government. Paul’s employment of the quotation from the Psalms corresponds to this canon; much sooner shall all men be liars, than that a shadow be cast on God’s truth or fidelity to His covenant. The
íé÷ᾷí
is frequently used in the judicial sense (see Meyer). Beza, Piscat., and recently Tholuck and Philippi [also Meyer and Ewald.], would take
÷ñßíåóèáé
in the middle sense, for to litigate. But the Apostle could not expect that his expression would be understood in any other sense than in the Septuagint. [Comp., however, Textual Note7.—P. S.]
[That thou mayest,
ὅðùò ἄí
,
ìְîַòַï
, in Psa_51:6 (Rom_3:4 in the E. V.), to the intent that, in order that (
ôåëé÷ῶò
). This seems to mean that God caused David’s sins to take this aggravated form for the very purpose that He might appear to be entirely just, when He pronounced condemnation of it. But such an interpretation would imply the contradiction that God condemns His own act. Hence most commentators (even Calvin) take
ìִîַòַï
here, and often, like
ἵíá
and
ὅðùò
in the New Testament, of the effect or consequence (
ἐ÷âáôé÷ῶò
) = so that. But
ìîòï
and
ἵíá
grammatically always, or nearly always, indicate the design or purpose (see Gesen., Thes., s. v., and Winer, Gramm., p. 426 ff., 7th ed.); and where this seems inapplicable, as here, we must assume a logical rather than a grammatical latitude. Design and effect often coincide. The Bible no doubt teaches the absolute sovereignty of God, yet never in a fatalistic or pantheistic sense so as to exclude the personal freedom and responsibility of man. Hence it represents, for instance, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, as the judicial act and punishment of God (Exo_4:21; Exo_7:3), and at the same time as Pharaoh’s own act and guilt (Exo_9:34). David certainly could not mean to say that he sinned with the intention of glorifying God—which would have destroyed the sincerity of his repentance, and exposed him to the just condemnation of Paul in Rom_3:8—but that his sin was overruled by God for the greater manifestation of His justice. God never does evil, nor wills any man to do evil, in order that good may come out of it, but He exercises His power, wisdom, and love in overruling all evil for good. It is not the sinner who glorifies God through his sin, but God who glorifies Himself through the sinner. Comp. also the remarks of Hupfeld and Hengstenberg on Psa_51:6.—P. S.]
Rom_3:5. But if our unrighteousness, &c. [A new objection which might be suggested by the
ὅðùò
in Rom_3:4; namely, if man’s sin redounds to the glory of God, and sets His righteousness in a clearer light (as in the case of David), it is a means to a good end, and hence it ought not to be punished. Paul admits the premise, but denies the conclusion, Rom_3:6.—P. S.] Meyer takes here
ἀäé÷éá
in a very general and comprehensive sense, without regard to the legal element contained in it, and explains: “an abnormal ethical disposition.” By this definition the wicked, the unholy, the bad, can be denoted; but unrighteousness is misconduct in opposition to the law and the right. On
óõíéóôÜíáé
, see the Lexica; also Rom_5:8 ; 2Co_7:11, &c. [also Textual Note8].
What shall we say?
Ôß ἐñïῦìåí
. A form which often occurs in Paul (Rom_4:1; Rom_6:1, &c.). It is peculiar to rabbinical dialectics, and is very common in the Talmud (quid est dicendum). 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 classics. [See Tholuck.] The sentence, if our unrighteousness, &c, is true, but the following conclusion is rejected as false. The Apostle certainly assumes that an unbelieving Jew could raise this objection, but he makes it himself. This is evident, first, from the interrogative form; second, from the position of the question in such a manner that a negative answer is expected; third, from the addition: humanly speaking,
÷áôὰ ἄíèñùðïí ëÝãù
. his expression is common among the rabbis, “as men speak” (see Tholuck); the term
ἀíèñùðßíùò ëáëåῖí
[humane loqui] also occurs in the classics [see the examples quoted by Tholuck]. The expression
÷áôὰ ἄíèñ
., resting on the antithesis between God and man, denotes, with Paul, now the opposition between the common sinful conduct and opinions of men, and the conduct and opinions in the light of revelation; and now the opposition between common human rights and customs and the theocratic rights (Gal_3:15, and other places). From this addition it does not follow that the question,
ìὴ ἄäé÷ïò
, must be regarded as affirmative (see Meyer, against Philippi). [The phrase
÷áôὰ ἄíèñùðïí
proves nothing against inspiration. The Apostle here puts himself into the place of other men, using their thoughts and arguments, but expressly rejecting them.—P. S.]
Rom_3:6. For then how shall God judge the world? This does not mean: God would then not be able to judge the world; but, according to the usual explanation: Since it is universally agreed among religious people that God will be the Judge of the world, the conclusion alluded to must be rejected. The argument is therefore a reductio ad absurdum. (Rückert: the proof is weak!) Cocceius [Reiche], Olshausen, and others, refer
÷üóìïò
(according to rabbinical usage of language) to the Gentile world, and the proof is thus conceived: Even Gentile idolatry must bring to light the glory of the true God; and yet God will judge the Gentile world. Therefore the unbelief of some Jews cannot escape the judgment, even though their unrighteousness corroborates the righteousness of God. But there is no proper foundation for this explanation in the text; and besides, it would only remove a smaller difficulty by a greater one, and in a way that would commend itself only to Jewish prejudice. The New Testament idea of the general judgment is universal. Even the antithesis of
÷üóìïò
and
âáóéëåßá ôïῦ Èåïῦ
cannot be applied here. With the usual explanation (Tholuck, Meyer, and others) it may nevertheless be asked, whether a sentence which has been dismissed with
ìὴ ãÝíïéôï
, stands in further need of a proof. According to our construction, the sentence can also be explanatory, and stand in connection with the following (see below).
Rom_3:7-8. But if the truth of God, &c. The objection of Rom_3:7 appears only to repeat that of Rom_3:5; therefore it is difficult to connect it with what precedes. The difficulty is solved as follows: (1) Calvin, Beza, Grotius [Bengel, Rückert], Philippi, and others think that the objection of Rom_3:5 is only continued and established in Rom_3:7; and the words
÷áôὰ ἄíèñùðïí ëÝãù
to
÷üóìïò
(Rom_3:6) should be read, according to Philippi, parenthetically, as a preliminary outburst of apostolic indignation. By this means, the dialectics assume the shape of an involved controversy, in which the Apostle prematurely interrupts the opponent. Tholuck believes that he can produce similar examples in proof of this (Rom_7:25, and Gal_3:3-4). (2) Meyer: “The
ἐðåὶ ðῶò ÷ñéíåῖ ὁ èåὸò ôὸí ÷üóìïí
(Rom_3:6) is now confirmed thus: The fact already considered (Rom_3:4 f.), that God’s truth is glorified by the lie of man, removes every ground for supposing that an unrighteous God (sic!), who is to judge the world, will judge man as a sinner,” &c. Apart from the quaint construction of the thought, the true statement in Rom_3:5 would be treated as untrue. [De Wette, Alford, Hodge, though differing somewhat in detail, likewise regard Rom_3:7-8 as the amplification and confirmation of the answer given in Rom_3:6 to the objection stated in Rom_3:5. If this objection be valid, then not only may every sinner claim exemption, but it would follow that it is right to do evil that good may come. This is certainly a more easy and natural connection than the one under (1), and best explains the
ãÜñ
. But if we read
åἰ äÝ
, we must regard Rom_3:7 as introducing a new objection, as in a dialogue between the Apostle and an interlocutor—an objection which is indignantly resented by Paul as a blasphemous slander. But see the remarks under the next heads.—P. S.] (3) Even if we find here, according to Thodoret, the language of a Jew in dispute with the Apostle, the sentence does not appear to be the continuation of the thought of Rom_3:5. Then the Jew has first drawn the conclusion from Rom_3:5. that God is unjust if He punish sins by which He is glorified. Here he would deduce the conclusion, from Rom_3:4, that the man, who by his
øåῦóìáé
contributes to the glory of God, is neither a sinner, nor punishable; rather, that he may do evil that good may come. Thus two cases, which would constitute a parallel to Rom_2:3-4—the first case denoting fanaticism, the other, antinomianism. But there are considerations presented by the text itself against this view. First, the
ãÜñ
at the beginning of Rom_3:7; which, for this reason, has been removed by many Codd. (B. D., &c., the Vulgate, &c.) as an impediment to the proper understanding of the passage. Then the aorist,
ἐðåñßóóåõóåí
, which Meyer thinks should be understood from the standpoint of the general judgment (Tholuck regards it as present, with Luther). Further, Meyer must interpolate a
ôß
before the
ìÞ
in Rom_3:8 (
ôß ìÞ
, quidni?). Also, if Paul be not permitted to speak in the name of the unbelieving Jew and interrupt himself, an
ἡìåῖò
must stand before
âëáóöçìïýìåèá
. We are therefore of the opinion that the hypothesis of the interlocution of the obstinate Jew is not correct. (4) Our explanation is contained already in the translation. [See Textual Notes10and 11.] The Apostle says first, God does not declare wrath on all who have glorified his faithfulness by their unfaithfulness. Granted that His covenant faithfulness has by means of my unfaithfulness, shown itself more powerful and conspicuous to His glory (Rom_5:8), that is, that I have finally become a believer—how? am I also still judged as a sinner? Answer: No. And therefore we would by no means continue in unbelief, as those
ôéíÝò
in Rom_3:3, in order, by wicked conduct, to accomplish a good purpose, God’s glory—which is the principle laid by some to our charge. Men who act thus (and the
ôéíÝò
do act thus) are justly condemned. Here the
ἀëÞèåéá
of God is the agent, and
øåῦóìá
is the object. In Rom_3:5 there was the reverse, the
ἀäé÷ßá
of man being the agent, and God’s righteousness the object. In Rom_3:7 the question is concerning the predominance or conquest (see Rom_5:20) on the side of the
ἀëÞèåéá
for the honor of God; in Rom_3:5, the question is merely concerning the bringing of the truth to light. The solution of the difficulty lies in the
ἐðåñßóóåõóåí
.—On the different explanations of
÷ἀãþ
, see Tholuck. I as well as others [De Wette, Alford]; even I, a Jew [Bengel]; even I, a Gentile [Coccej., Olshausen]; even I, Paul [Fritzsche]; even I, who have added to the glorification of God [De Wette, Tholuck].
Rom_3:8. [As we are blasphemously (not, slanderously) reported. The blasphemy refers not only to Paul, but in the last instance to God, whose holy and righteous character is outraged by the impious maxim, to do evil that good may come.]—In reference to the
ὅôé
, we must observe that, in consequence of attraction, the
ðïéÞóùìåí
is united with
ëÝãåéí
.—The
÷áèὼò âëáóöçìïýìåèá
leads us to conclude that the Jews charged the Apostle, or the Christians in general, with the alleged principle: The end sanctifies the means (Tholuck, Calvin). Usual acceptation: the doctrine of superabounding mercy (Rom_5:20) is meant (see Tholuck). Meyer: “The labors of the Apostle among the Gentiles could occasion such slanders on the part of the Jews.” According to the view of the Jews, the Christians converted the Gentile world to Monotheism, by betraying and corrupting the covenant of the Jews.—Whose condemnation is just. The
ὧí
does not refer directly to the slanderers as such, since this is an accessory notion, but to the principle, let us do evil that good may come, and to the fact lying at its root, the hardness of the Jews in unfaithfulness, as they more clearly showed the covenant faithfulness of God. But, indirectly, the charge of those slanderers is also answered at the same time. Rom_3:7 favors our explanation. [
ὧí
refers to the subject in
ðïéÞóùìåí
, to those who speak and act according to this pernicious and blasphemous maxim.—P. S.]
Third Paragraph, Rom_3:9-20
The transition of the covenant of law to the covenant of grace is already indicated in the preceding paragraph. This is brought to pass in part by the constant unfaithfulness of individuals, and in part by the transitory unfaithfulness of others. In every case Israel’s sin is manifested in this covenant.
Rom_3:9. What then? It must not be read, with Œcumenius [Koppe, Hofmann, Th. Schott],
ôß ïἶí
,
ðñïå÷üìåèá
[omitting the interrogation sign after
ïὖí
]; against which is the
ïὐ
. The introduction of the result refers to the foregoing section under the point of view that Israel certainly has advantages on the objective side, but none on the subjective. This is now extended further.
Ðñïå÷üìåèá
. Explanations: 1. The middle voice here has the signification of the active: Have we [the Jews] the preference? do we excel? have we an advantage? (Theophylact, Œcumenius, the old commentators in general.) Also De Wette, who says: This is the only suitable sense. Therefore the reading
ðñï÷áôÝ÷ïìåí
. Meyer urges against this view: (a.) The usage of language; (b) the previous admission of Israel’s advantage [Rom_3:2,
ðïëὺ ÷áôὰ ðÜíôá ôñüðïí
, which seems to conflict with
ïὐðÜíôùò
, Rom_3:9.—P. S.]. 2. The middle voice in the signification of: to hold before, to hold for one’s protection. Hemsterhuys, Venema, &c. (Fritzsche, figuratively: Do we need a pretext?) Meyer: Have we a protection? That is, have we something with which to defend or screen ourselves? Against this, Tholuck raises the objection that the verb, in this case, should have an accusative. [Have we any thing for a pretext? Answer: Nothing (instead of: Not at all, not in the least).—P. S.] 3. The passive construction (Œcumenius II, Wetstein, Storr). [Œcumenius takes the word as the question of a Gentile: Are we surpassed by the Jews? Wetstein, as the question of a Jew: Are we surpassed by the Gentiles? Reiche and Olshausen: Are we preferred by God? This last form of the passive rendering agrees, as to sense, with the active rendering sub No. 1. But the Apostle is not sp
