5. εἰ δὲ introduces, in order to remove, a difficulty suggested by this argument: if the confession of man’s sin has for its result the vindication of GOD’S righteousness, is not that a justification of the sin? It is met by an appeal (1) to a fundamental postulate of GOD’S judgment, (2) to a fundamental axiom of man’s conduct (Rom 3:8). It is not examined in its own elements till ch. 11.
ἡμῶν, of us men.
θ. δικ., righteousness in GOD; here of the character of GOD as a righteous judge.
συνίστησιν establishes by way of proof (cf. Rom 5:8, Gal 2:18) from the literal sense ‘construct a whole of various parts.’
τί ἐροῦμεν. Characteristic of this Ep.; cf. μὴ γένοιτο, above.
μὴ, can it really be that …? Puts a question with the implication of a decided negative. Is it a wrong thing to punish that conduct which brings into greater clearness the righteousness of GOD?
τὴν ὀργήν. The wrath which has been already described (Rom 1:18 f.) in judgment.
κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. In S. Paul only; cf. esp. 1Co 9:8; Gal 3:15; cf. the vocative in Rom 9:20 : = after a merely human manner, so here ‘after an ordinary way of men’s speaking, in their bold blaming of GOD.’ Common in classical Greek (cf. Wetstein), but with a different reference: in class. Gk = the normal, truly human, what is right and proper for man; in S. Paul = the merely human, what men do and say when uninfluenced by the divine grace and not responding to their true destiny. So it strikes a note of apology.