Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

Romans 3:1.— The Apostle, in the latter end of the foregoing chapter, has carried his argument to the utmost length. What remains is, to keep the Jew in temper, to fix his convictions, and to draw the general conclusion. He has shewn that the Jews were rather more wicked than the Gentiles, and stood condemned by such of them as sincerelydid their duty through the secret influences of divine grace; that a possession of the law, circumcision, and an outward profession of relation to God, gave them no character, and signified nothing, as to their acceptance with him. This was in effect to say, that the Jews were as unworthy to be continued in the church, as the Gentiles to be taken into it; and consequently, that in order to their enjoying the privileges of the church, under the Messiah, they stood in need of a fresh display of grace; which if they rejected, God would cast them out of the vineyard. And the Apostle was sensible that the Jew would understand what he had said in this sense. To set aside his law, his circumcision, his external advantages, as insufficient to gain him any interest in the favour of God, was to strip him of his peculiar honours, and quite ruin him as a Jew. This must be very disgusting: and the Apostle, who had often debated the point with his countrymen, knew very well what a Jew would be ready to say upon this occasion. Here, therefore, he seasonably introduces a dialogue between himself and the Jew, indulging, as it were, his disgust, by giving him leave to speak for himself; Rom 3:1-8 and what he is supposed to speak, we have reason to think was what the Jews had actually replied and objected against the Apostle. This would amuse, and at the same time instruct him, and possibly cool his resentment; especially as the Apostle's answer to the first question is much in his favour. There seems no room to doubt, that this dialogue relates to the rejection of the Jews; a subject which would have come in here naturally enough. But then it would have broken in too much upon the Apostle's argument: for which reason he but just touches upon it here, reserving the full consideration of it to the 9th, 10th, and 11th chapters; particularly ch. Romans 9:4-23; where we have the same questions more distinctly put, answered, and largely discussed; only we may observe, that here they relate solely to the rejection of the Jews, but there they take in also the calling of the Gentiles. After the dialogue, St. Paul resumes his argument, Rom 3:9 proves farther by Scripture quotations, that the Jews were guilty before God as well as other men, Rom 3:10-19 and concludes that no part of mankind could have a right to the blessings of God's kingdom and covenant upon the footing of any works of obedience which they had done, Rom 3:20 but only by the favour of God in the Gospel; which he explains, Romans 3:21, &c. The sum and force of the Apostle's argument is this: "All sorts of men, Jews as well as Gentiles, have sinned: therefore no part of mankind can lay claim to the blessings of God's kingdom and covenant upon the score of obedience; and therefore the Jew stands as much in need of grace or favour, to give him a title to those blessings under the kingdom of the Messiah, as the Gentile. Consequently the Gentile has as good a title as the Jew; for those blessings are given only by grace; and grace, or mere favour, is alike free to all mankind: and when all are in equal circumstances, it is perfectly absurd for any to pretend to engross it to themselves, exclusively of others, who are as good, or but as bad, as they." And thus the Apostle very solidly, and to our great comfort, proves, that we Gentiles, through faith alone, have a good and firm title to all the blessings of the Gospel covenant; pardon, privileges, ordinances, the Spirit of God, and the rich hope of everlasting life.

return to '

Romans 3:2. Much every way— St. Paul gives a list of the advantages which the Jew had over the Gentile, ch. Rom 9:4-5 but here mentions only one of them, which was most proper to his present purpose; and which is so remarkable and important a testimony to the divine inspiration of the Old Testament in general, that it can leave no doubt of the full persuasion of St. Paul upon this head. See Doddridge and Locke. We may read the next clause, Because they were intrusted with the oracles of God.

return to '

Romans 3:3. For what if some did not believe? &c.— This and the following verse are generally understood as a continuation and explication of the Apostle's answer in the second verse; whereby the sense of the third and fourth verses is generally embarrassed, as they will not admit of a connection with the second verse. For in truth, Rom 3:3 is not the words of the Apostle, but a second question or objection advanced by the Jews: nor is γαρ, for, a causal, shewing the reason why the having the oracles of God committed to them was a privilege, notwithstanding their unbelief; but the original words τι γαρ, are interrogative, and may be translated, well, and what? And thus the phrase is frequently used in Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates: see particularly, lib. 2. 100. 6 sect. 2. Whence it appears that the phrase τι γαρ, in a dialogue, and when the word τι has no following substantive to agree with it, is a form of introducing another question or objection by the inquirer. And as the Apostle in this place is carrying on a dialogue after the Socratic manner, it is to be understood as advancing a new question or objection; and thus every thing stands right and easy, which otherwise is in great disorder. Did not believe, should rather be, Have not been faithful; that is to say, have not been obedient. See 1 Pet. ii 7. The Jew here alludes to the charge of wickedness which the Apostle had brought against the Jews in the foregoing chapter. St. Paul has the same sentiment as the next clause in chap. Romans 9:6. He is speaking of the same thing in both places; and therefore evidently the faith of God, here, is the same with the faith of God, there, or that faithful promise which he made to Abraham. See Genesis 17:7-8. Tillotson's Sermons, vol. 12: serm. 1. The verse may be rendered, For what if some of them were unfaithful, shall their unfaithfulness make void the faithfulness of God?

return to '

Romans 3:4. But every man a liar— Though every man should be a liar. For the next clause, see the note on Psalms 51:4. Dr. Taylor observes, that the Hebrew of that verse literally is, that thou mayest be just in thy speaking, and clean [that is clear] in thy judging. The speaking meant is, the word of promise which God made to David, 2Sa 7:12-16 and the judging referred to is the execution of the threatening denounced, 2Sa 12:9-13 and David owns, that if the threatening did not agree with the promise, God was clear from the charge of falsehood; the inconsistency must be assigned to his own wickedness. This is full to the Apostle's purpose. If the promise to Abraham was not made good, as the Jews expected, they might thank themselves for it. See Tillotson, vol. 12: serm. 8.

return to '

Romans 3:5. The righteousness of God— St. Paul hereby intends God's faithfulness in keeping his promise. This verse is the language of an unbelieving Jew, and therefore in his mouth God's righteousness, or fidelity to his promise, has relation only to the nation of the Jews, and their being still continued the church and people of God.—Who taketh vengeance, might be rendered, more agreeably to the original, who inflicteth wrath, or, "who is the inflicter of wrath, as you intimate." See on chap. Rom 2:1 and on Romans 1:18. This expression evidently points at the rejection of the Jews, and therefore is closely connected with chap. 9: where the Apostle not only handles the same subject, but resumes these very questions or objections of the unbelieving Jew, and answers them at large; and as the rejection of the Jews stands here inserted in the midst of his argument relating to the justification of the Gentiles, it is manifestly connected with that argument, or with the Apostle's doctrine of justification by faith. For after his discourse here, upon the rejection of the Jews, he immediately subjoins, Romans 3:9. What then? are we better than they?—In answer to which, he proves to the end of the chapter that the Jews were not better than the Gentiles, seeing both stood in need of the grace or favour of God for their justification. Thus, in the Apostle's discourse and argument, the rejection of the Jews stands in close connection with his doctrine of justification. But what connection or relation is there between the justification of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews?—This will appear from what is said chap. Romans 9:30-31, and the note there. In short, the rejection of the Jews for their want of faith stands in direct opposition to the justification of the Gentiles by faith; therefore, if we have a true idea of the rejection of the Jews, we may thence collect a true idea of the justification of the Gentiles; but the rejection of the Jews is their being cast out of God's church, and stripped of the privileges and blessings of God's peculiar people; consequently the justification of the Gentiles, for which the Apostle pleads, chap. 3: and 4: is their being pardoned, and received to all the privileges and blessings of God's peculiar people. See Locke.

return to '

Romans 3:6. God forbid!— This verse is the Apostle's answer to the Jews, which he crowds in while the Jew is going on with his observation. In reverence of the Divine Majesty, who is perfectly righteous, he qualifies the mere supposition for a moment of his being unrighteous (though this is proposed only for the sake of argument) three ways; first, by putting it into the form of a question, Is God un-righteous? Secondly, by adding immediately, that he spoke in the person of another, and as a man might say who was arguing that the casting off the Jews was a thing inconsistent with God's righteousness. Thirdly, by interrupting the Jew with a strong assertion of the most perfect righteousness of God, in the words of Abraham, Genesis 18:25. We have a similar instance of crowding in an answer while another person is speaking, Hor. lib. 2: sat. 3 ver. 187.

return to '

Romans 3:9. What then?—Are we better than they?— The Apostle having given the Jew leave to put in his objections, in reference to what would disgust him most,—the rejection of the Jews; and having given such answers as he thought proper at present,—now returns to the main point, namely, to prove that the Gentiles have as good a right to the privileges and blessings of God's covenant as the Jews; which he introduces very properly by putting this question into the Jew's mouth; What then? Are we better than the Gentiles? which by the way makes it clear, that in his arguments he considers the Jews and Gentiles in a body, or collective capacity, and that he is arguingfor a justification agreeable to such a capacity; namely, by which the believing Gentiles were taken into the church, when the unbelieving Jews were cast out. For this point, whether Jews, or how far Jews were better than Gentiles, or had a better claim to the blessings and privileges of the kingdom of God, is the very subject upon which he is disputing; and in this extensive collective sense, all his arguments and conclusions are to be understood. He says, we have before proved,—namely, chap. Rom 2:3 where, under the gentler compellation of O man! he charges the Jews with being sinners, as well as the Gentiles, and Rom 3:17-24 shews, that by having the law, they were no more kept from being sinners, than the Gentiles were without the law: and his charge against them that they were sinners, he reproves from the testimony of their own sacred books contained in the Old Testament. See Locke.

return to '

Romans 3:19. The law saith— It appears here, that this word law sometimes signifies the Old Testament in general; for not one of the quotations above is taken from the Pentateuch. Instead of that every mouth may be stopped, the original would be better rendered, so that every mouth is stopped. Instead of may become guilty before God, the original may be rendered more exactly, stand convicted before God. Archbishop Tillotson would render it, liable to divine justice, which is the same in sense. See his works, fol. vol. 1: p. 126.

See commentary on Rom 3:10

return to '