Chú giải Kinh Thánh

Romans 2:26

Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law. This verse is an inference (οὖν) from the preceding. It was there taught that everything depends upon obedience to the law. God will judge every man according to his works. If a Jew, though circumcised, break the law, he shall be condemned; and if a Gentile, though uncircumcised, keep the law, he shall be justified. The one proposition flows from the other; for if circumcision is in itself nothing, its presence cannot protect the guilty; its absence cannot invalidate the claims of the righteous. Δικαιώματα, decrees, percepts, what the law prescribes as right. The apostle does not mean to intimate that the Gentiles do in any case keep the righteousness of the law; contrary to his own explicit assertion, that there is none righteous, no not one. It is a mere hypothetical statement, designed to show that everything depends on obedience, and that circumcision cannot be the ground either of justification or condemnation. Shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? The phrase λογίζεσθαί τι εἴς τι often means to reckon or regard one thing as another (see 1 Samuel 1:13; Isaiah 29:17). Uncircumcision shall be taken for circumcision.

return to '

Romans 2:27

Calvin makes this verse a part of the interrogation begun in Romans 2:26, a mode of pointing followed by Koppe, Lachmann, Fritzsche, and many others. ‘Shall not uncircumcision be reckoned circumcision, and condemn you who break the law?’ Our translators supply οὐχί, before κρινεῖ, and make Romans 2:27 a distinct interrogation, ‘and shall not the uncircumcision condemn you,’ etc. Meyer takes Romans 2:27 categorically, and καί in the sense of even or moreover, so that Romans 2:27 is virtually an answer to the preceding question. ‘Shall not uncircumsion be taken for circumcision? (Yes, verily), it will even condemn you,’ etc. In either way the idea is, that the obedient uncircumcised heathen would be better off, he would stand on higher ground, than the disobedient circumcised Jew. It is only putting the truth taught in this verse into different words to say, ‘the unbaptized believer shall condemn the baptized unbeliever.’ The which circumcision which is by nature, ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία. The position of the article shows plainly that ἐκ φύσεως qualifies ἀκροβυστία, and is not to be connected with the following participle τελοῦσα. The sense is, “the uncircumcision which is natural,” and not ‘which by nature keeps the law.’ If it fulfill the law, i.e., provided it is obedient, and therefore righteous. Shall judge, κρινεῖ, by implication, shall condemn; the judgment is by the context supposed to be a condemnatory one. Comp. Matthew 12:41. Thee who by the letter, etc.; σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος, thee with the letter, i.e., the written law. In the present case it is not used in a disparaging sense, for the mere verbal meaning in opposition to the spirit. The context rather requires that γράμμα and περιτομή should be taken as expressing the real and substantial benefits of the Jews. Our version renders διά by, Beza also has per. He understands the apostle to mean that external circumcision being profaned only rendered the Jews so much the worse. But as διά with the genitive so often means with, as expressing the circumstances under which anything is done (as δι ̓ ὑπομονῆς; with patience, διὰ προσκόμματος with offense), the meaning is, Te, qui literas et circumcisionem habens, contra legem facis. Notwithstanding they had the law and circumcision, they were transgressors of the law. Calvin makes letter and circumcision to mean literal circumcision; but this is unnecessary, and unsuited to the context; for when speaking of the advantages of the Jews, the law is of too much importance to allow of the word which expresses it being merged into a mere epithet.

return to '

Romans 2:28, Romans 2:29

For not he who is externally a Jew, is a Jew, etc. These verses assign the reason why the external rite of circumcision can avail so little. God looks upon the heart, and does not regard mere external circumstances. It is not, therefore, mere descent from Abraham, nor connection with the external theocracy or church, that can secure his favor; but the possession of those internal dispositions which eternal rites are intended to symbolize. Romans 2:28 contains the negative, Romans 2:29 the affirmative statement of this general truth. The word Ἰουδαῖος is to be supplied in the first member of the sentence, as the subject is ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖος, and the predicate Ἰουδαῖος ἐστιν. The same remark may be made with regard to the following clause, where the subject is ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή, and the predicate περιτομή ἐστιν. External circumcision in the flesh is not circumcision. Φανερός, apparent, visible, what falls under the observation of the senses, hence external. The word Jew is of course to be taken as the designation of the people of God. ‘He is not one of the people of God who is such externally.’ It is nothing external that constitutes or secures this peculiar relation to God. The affirmative statement is, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος [Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν], but the Jew in secret is a Jew. As in the preceding verse, part of the subject is borrowed from the predicate, so here and in the following clause the predicate is to be borrowed from the subject; that is, Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν is to be supplied after the first clause, and περιτομή ἐστιν after the second clause of this verse, so that the whole reads thus: “But he who is inwardly a Jew is really a Jew; and the circumcision of the heart, in spirit and not in letter, is circumcision.” This is the construction of the passage almost universally adopted. Κρυπτός, hidden, and as opposed to φανερός, inward; hence ἐν τῶς κρυπτῷ, inwardly, in heart. Comp. 1 Peter 3:4. True circumcision is described as περιτομὴ καρδίας, ἐν πνεύματι, οὐ γράμματι. These latter words admit of different interpretations. The apostle contrasts πνεῦμα and γράμμα in Romans 7:6, and 2 Corinthians 3:6, much as he does here. In Romans 7:6, oldness of the letter may mean the condition and spirit of those who were under the law, now become old; and newness of the spirit may mean that new condition and temper which the Holy Spirit gives. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 Paul says he was made a minister of the new covenant, οὐ γράμματος, ἀλλὰ πνεύματος, not of the letter, but of the spirit, i.e., not of the law, but of the gospel; not of a mere objective, legal covenant, but of that which derives its whole character from the Spirit, and therefore is spirit, or in the widest sense of the word, of spiritual. Comp. also Galatians 3:3. Guided by these passages, Rückert understands πνεῦμα here to mean the new principle of life imparted by the Holy Spirit, and ἐν to express instrumentality. Thus the sense is: The circumcision of the heart is not produced or effected by the law, but by this new divine principle of life. The same interpretation substantially is given by Köllner. It is not, however, strictly in accordance with the mode of representation adopted in the Scriptures, to speak of the circumcision of the heart, i.e., sanctification, as effected by anything implanted in us. Beza makes ἐν πνεύματι simply exegetical of καρδίας, and gives the sense thus: “Cujus vis est interior et in animo, sive qua circumcisi sunt affectus.” Erasmus: “Quae Spiritu constant, referens ad Spiritum Sanctum, cujus unius opus es ista circumcisio ἀχειροποίητος. Mihi vero videtur ἐν πνεύματι additum partim propter antithesin γράμματος, partim ut explicaret, quid vocaret circumcisionem cordis.” According to this view, ἐν πνεύματι is in heart, and is tautological with the clause (circumcision of the heart) which it should explain. And besides, the opposition between πνεῦμα and γράμμα is thus destroyed. Others again take ἐν πνεύματι and ἐν γράμματι adverbial, “after a spiritual, not after a literal or external way;” or adjectively, spiritual, not literal. The most common, and on the whole the preferable interpretation, refers πνεῦμα to the Holy Spirit, and gives ἐν the sense of by. The circumcision of the heart is then effected by the Spirit, and not by the letter, i.e., in obedience to the prescriptions of the law. Whose praise is not of men, but of God. The relative ου is to be referred to Ἰουδαῖος. The true Jew, or child of God, is one whose excellence is internal, seen and acknowledged by God; not in its nature external, securing the notice and approbation of men. If the relative οὗ be taken as neuter, then the idea is the same, but presented in another form: ‘Of which (i.e., of this spiritual Judaism) the praise is of God.’ As, however, Ἰουδαῖος is the main subject in the context, the former explanation is the more natural. The spiritual import of circumcision was clearly taught in the Old Testament, as in Deuteronomy 30:6 : “The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God.” See Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4 : “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.” The wicked are therefore called “the uncircumcised in heart,” Jeremiah 9:26; Ezekiel 44:9; Acts 7:51. Comp. Colossians 2:11 : “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” This is what he calls “the circumcision of Christ,” or Christian circumcision, that which Christ secures and gives. As circumcision thus signifies inward purification, and was a seal of the righteousness of faith, it was, as to its import and design, identical with baptism. Hence what in Colossians 2:11, Paul expresses by saying, “Ye are circumcised,” he expresses in Colossians 2:12 by saying, “Ye are buried with him in baptism.” What, therefore, he teaches of the worthlessness of external circumcision, without internal purity, and of the possibility of the external sign being, received without the internal grace, is no less true of baptism. See 1 Corinthians 7:18, 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 6:15.

Doctrine

1. Membership in the true Church, considered as a visible society, is no security that we shall obtain the favor of God. The Jews, before the advent, were members of the true and only Church, and yet Paul teaches that they were not on this account the more acceptable to God. Multitudes of Jewish converts were members of the apostolic Church, and yet, retaining their former doctrines and spirit, were in the gall of bitterness, Romans 2:17.

2. Mere knowledge cannot commend us to God. It neither sanctifies the heart, nor of itself renders men more useful. When made the ground of confidence, or the fuel of pride and arrogance, it is perverted and destructive, Romans 2:18-20.

3. Superior knowledge enhances the guilt of sin, and increases the certainty, necessity, and severity of punishment, without in itself increasing the power of resistance. It is, therefore, a great mistake to make knowledge our sole dependence in promoting the moral improvement of men, Romans 2:21, Romans 2:22.

4. The sins of the professing people of God are peculiarly offensive to him, and injurious to our fellow-men, Romans 2:22-24.

5. Here, as in the former part of the chapter, the leading idea is, that God is just. He asks not whether a man is a Jew or a Gentile, a Greek or Barbarian, bond or free, but what is his character? Does he do good or evil? Romans 2:17-24.

6. According to the apostle, the true idea of a sacrament is not that it is a mystic rite, possessed of inherent efficacy, or conveying grace as a mere opus operatam; but that it is a seal and sign, designed to confirm our faith in the validity of the covenant to which it is attached; and, from its significant character, to present and illustrate some great spiritual truth, Romans 2:25.

7. All hopes are vain which are founded on a participation of the sacraments of the Church, even when they are of divine appointment, as circumcision, baptism, and the Lord’s supper; much more when they are of human invention, as penance, and extreme unction, Romans 2:26, Romans 2:27.

8. Religion and religious services, to be acceptable to God, must be of the heart. Mere external homage is of no account, Romans 2:28, Romans 2:29.

Remarks

1. The sins and refuges of men are alike in all ages. The Jew expected salvation because he was a Jew, so does the Roman Catholic because he is a Roman Catholic, the Greek because he is a Greek, and so of others. Were it ever so certain that the Church to which we belong is the true, apostolic, universal Church, it remains no less certain that without holiness no man shall see God, Romans 2:17, etc.

2. The possession of superior knowledge should make us anxious, first, to go right ourselves, and then to guide others right. To preach against evils which we ourselves commit, while it aggravates our guilt, is little likely to do others much good, Romans 2:18, etc.

3. Christians should ever remember that they are the epistles of Jesus Christ, known and read of all men; that God is honored by their holy living, and that his name is blasphemed when they act wickedly, Romans 2:23, Romans 2:24.

4. Whenever true religion declines, the disposition to lay undue stress on external rites is increased. The Jews, when they lost their spirituality, supposed that circumcision had power to save them. ‘Great is the virtue of circumcision,’ they cried; ‘no circumcised person enters hell.’ The Christian Church, when it lost its spirituality, taught that water in baptism washed away sin. How large a part of nominal Christians rest all their hopes on the idea of the inherent efficacy of external rites! Romans 2:25, etc.

5. While it is one dangerous extreme to make religion consist in the observance of external ceremonies, it is another to undervalue them, when of divine appointment. Paul does not say that circumcision was useless; he asserts its value. So, likewise, the Christian sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s supper, are of the utmost importance, and to neglect or reject them is a great sin, Romans 2:26, etc.

6. If the heart be right in the sight of God, it matters little what judgment men may form of us; and, on the other hand, the approbation of men is a poor substitute for the favor of God, Romans 2:29.

return to '

Chapter III

Contents

This chapter may be divided into three parts. The first contains a brief statement and refutation of the jewish objections to the apostle’s reasoning Romans 3:1-8. The second a confirmation of his doctrine from the testimony of scripture; and a formal drawing out and declaration of his conclusions that by the works of the law no flesh living can be justified before god, Romans 3:9-20. The third, an exposition of the gospel method of justification Romans 3:21-31

Romans 3:1-8.

Analysis

The first objection to Paul’s reasoning here presented is, that according to his doctrine the Jew has no advantage over the Gentile, Romans 3:1. The apostle denies the correctness of this inference from what he had said, and admits that the Jews have great advantages over all other people, Romans 3:2. The second objection is, that God having promised to be the God of the Jews, their unfaithfulness, even if admitted, does not release him from his engagements, or make his promise of no effect, Romans 3:3. Paul, in answer, admits that the faithfulness of God must not be called in question, let what will happen, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:5; but he shows that the principle on which the Jews expected exemption from punishment, viz., because their unrighteousness commended the righteousness of God, was false. This he proves by showing first, that if their principle was correct, God could not punish any one, Gentile or Jew, Romans 3:5-7; and secondly, that it would lead to this absurdity, that it is right to do evil that good may come, Romans 3:8.

Commentary

Romans 3:1

What then is the advantage of the Jew? The conclusion at which the apostle had arrived at the end of the preceding chapter was, that the Jews, no less than the Gentiles, are to be judged according to their works, and by their knowledge of the divine will; and that being thus judged, they are exposed to condemnation, notwithstanding their circumcision and all their other advantages. The most obvious objection in the mind of a Jew to this conclusion must have been, that it was inconsistent with the acknowledged privileges and superiority of his nation. This objection the apostle here presents; the answer follows in the next verse: Περισσός, over and above, abundant; and in a comparative sense better, and substantively, as in the present instance, excellence, pre-eminence. What is the pre-eminence or superiority of the Jew? Comp. Ecclesiasticus 6:11, τί περισσὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; what advantage has man? The second question in this verse, what is the benefit of circumcision? is by some considered as a repetition of the first; circumcision being taken as the mere sign of Judaism. ‘What is the advantage of the Jew? or what is the benefit of Judaism?’ But circumcision as a rite was so important in the estimation of the Jews, and is made so prominent by the apostle in the preceding context, that it is better to consider the second question as referring to the rite itself.

return to '

Romans 3:2

Much, in every way. The answer to the objection implied in the preceding verse, is a denial of its correctness as an inference from the apostle’s reasoning. It does not follow, because the Jews are to be judged according to their works, that there is no advantage in being the peculiar people of God, having a divine revelation, etc. Πρῶτον μὲν γάρ. These words are rendered by Beza, primarium enim (illud est); comp. Luke 19:47; Acts 25:2. Calvin says, “πρῶτον significat praecipue vel praesertim, hoc sensu, Etsi unum istud esset, quod habent Dei oracula sibi commissa, satis valere debet ad eorum dignitatem.” Our translators adopt the same view. But to both of the interpretations the particle γάρ furnishes an objection. The third and simplest view is, that the words in question mean first, in the first place, as in 1 Corinthians 11:18; γάρ is then namely, for example. That the enumeration is not carried on, is no serious objection to this explanation, as we have other examples of the same kind. See Romans 1:8. Because they were entrusted with the oracles of God. The subject of ἐπιστεύθησαν, viz. Ἰουδαῖοι is implied by the connection; τὰ λόγια is the accusative; comp. Galatians 2:7; πεπίστευμαι τὸ ευσαγγέλιον, 1 Corinthians 9:17; 1 Thessalonians 2. Some, as Theodoret, Beza, etc., understand by τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, the law; others, as Grotius, Tholuck, etc., the Messianic promises; others, as Calvin, Rosenmüller, De Wette, the whole Scriptures. In favor of this last is the usage of the phrase which in the Old Testament is used for the revelation of God in general, and in the New Testament, for any divine communication. Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11. The words therefore are general in their meaning, and there is nothing in the context to limit them; for the apostle is speaking of the treasure committed to the safe custody of the Jews; that deposit of divine knowledge by which they were distinguished from all other nations. Here, as in innumerable other places, the sacred writers of the New Testament use forms of expression which clearly imply that they regarded the sacred writings of the Jews as really the word of God.

return to '

Romans 3:3

Τί γάρ; What then? See Philippians 1:18 — a formula used to introduce an explanation, confirmation, or vindication of a preceding assertion; or to start an objection for the purpose of answering it. In the present instance it is agreed that the apostle designs to vindicate what he had previously taught; but whether Romans 3:3 refers to Romans 3:2, or to the conclusion that the Jews were as much exposed to condemnation as the Gentiles, is not so plain. According to the former view, the design of this verse is to confirm what is said in Romans 3:2 : ‘To the Jews were committed the promises of God, or oracles of God. This is a great advantage; for if some of them disbelieve those promises, and reject the Messiah, God remains faithful, and will accomplish all his gracious purposes.’ Thus substantially, Calvin, Beza, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Rückert, Meyer, and many others. According to the other view, the apostle here presents and answers another objection to his previous reasoning: ‘What if we are unfaithful,’ says the Jew, ‘does that invalidate the faithfulness of God? Has he not promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed? Has he not entered into a solemn covenant to grant his people all the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom? This covenant is not suspended on our moral character. If we adhere to the covenant by being circumcised and observing the law, the fidelity of God is pledged for our salvation. We may therefore be as wicked as you would make us out to be; that does not prove that we shall be treated as heathen.’ For the latter view it may be urged,

1. That it is better suited to the context. It is plain that the whole of the first part of this chapter is an answer to the objections of the Jews to the apostle’s doctrine that they were exposed to condemnation. This is clear as to the first verse, and to the fifth and those that follow it. It is, therefore, more consistent with the design of the passage, to make this verse an answer to the main objection of the Jews, than to consider it a mere confirmation of what is said in Romans 3:2. This consideration has the more force, since, on the other view of the passage, the principal ground of confidence of the Jews, viz., their peculiar relation to God, is left unnoticed. Their great objection to Paul’s applying his general principles of justice to their case was that their situation was peculiar: ‘God has chosen us as his people in Abraham. If we retain our relation to him by circumcision and the observance of the law, we shall never be treated or condemned as the Gentiles.’ Traces of this opinion abound in the New Testament, and it is openly avowed by the Jewish writers. “Think not,” says the Baptist, “to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father,” Matthew 3:9. “We be Abraham’s seed,” John 8:33. Comp. Romans 2:17; Romans 9:6, and other passages, in which Paul argues to prove that being the natural descendants of Abraham is not enough to secure the favor of God. That such was the doctrine of the Jews is shown by numerous passages from their writings. “If a Jew commit all manner of sins,” says Abarbanel, “he is indeed of the number of sinning Israelites, and will be punished according to his sins; but he has, notwithstanding, a portion in eternal life.” The same sentiment is expressed in the book Torath Adam, fol. 100, in nearly the same words, and the reason assigned for it, “That all Israel has a portion in eternal life.”‹9› This is a favorite phrase with the Rabbins, and frequently occurs in their writings. Justin Martyr, as quoted by Grotius on Romans 2:13, attributes this doctrine to the Jews of his day: “They suppose that to them universally, who are of the seed of Abraham, no matter how sinful and disobedient to God they may be, the eternal kingdom shall be given.” This interpretation, therefore, makes the verse in question present the objection which the Jews would be most likely to urge.

2. A second consideration in its favor is, that it best satisfies the meaning of the words. The other view makes Paul say that the unfaithfulness of some of the Jews, some here and there, could not render the promise of no effect. It would be natural for the Jews thus to soften down the statement of the case. But Paul had not said that some of the Jews were unfaithful, but that they were all under condemnation; that as to this point there was no difference between them and the Gentiles, since all had sinned and come short of the glory of God.

It cannot escape notice how completely the doctrine of the Jews has been transferred by ritualists to Christianity. They held that if a man was circumcised and remained within the Theocracy, he might be punished for his sins, but he would ultimately be saved. So ritualists hold that all who are baptized and remain within the pale of the true Church, though they may suffer for their sins here or hereafter (in purgatory) are certain to be finally saved.

If some did not believe? The word ἡπίστησαν may mean disbelieved, or were unfaithful. Tholuck, Fritzsche, Rückert (2nd edition) Meyer, say the former, and explain the passage thus: ‘The promises (τὰ λόγια) committed to the Jews are a great distinction; and though some of the Jews have not believed those promises, nor received the Messiah, still God is faithful.’ The great majority of commentators say the latter, and consider the apostle as stating the want of fidelity of the Jews to the trust committed to them, i.e., to the covenant made with their fathers, as no reason for assuming a want of fidelity on the part of God. That ἀπιστεῖν may have the sense here assigned to it is plain from 2 Timothy 2:13 : and from the sense of τία in Hebrews 3:12, Hebrews 3:19, and of ἄπιστος in Luke 12:46; Revelation 21:8. To understand the passage as referring to want of faith in Christ, seems inconsistent with the whole context. The apostle has not come to the exposition of the gospel; he is still engaged in the preliminary discussion designed to show that the Jews and Gentiles are under sin, and exposed to condemnation; an exposure from which no peculiar privileges of the former, and no promise of God to their nation, could protect them.

return to '

Romans 3:4

Let it not be; the frequently recurring formula to express strong aversion or denial. The objection presented in the preceding verse is, that the apostle’s doctrine as to the condemnation of the Jews is inconsistent with the faithfulness of God. Is the faith of God without effect? asks the objector. By no means, answers the apostle; that is no fair inference from my doctrine. There is no breach of the promises of God involved in the condemnation of wicked Jews. How the condemnation of the Jews is consistent with the promises of God, he shows in a subsequent part of his epistle, chaps. 9-11; here he merely asserts the fact, and shows that the opposite assumption leads to an absurdity. Let God be true, but every man a liar. That is, the truth and fidelity of God must be acknowledged, whatever be the consequence. This is said to express the strongest aversion to the consequence charged on his doctrine. Γινέσθω has its proper sense, fiat, let him become, i.e., be seen and acknowledged as true. This disposition to justify God under all circumstances, the apostle illustrates by the conduct and language of David, who acknowledged the justice of God even in his own condemnation, and said, “Against thee only have I sinned; that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and overcome when thou art judged;” i.e., that thy rectitude, under all circumstances, might be seen and acknowledged. In the Hebrew, the last verb of the verse is active, when thou judgest; in the Septuagint, a passive form is used, when thou art judged. This latter Paul follows, because the sentiment in either case is the same. God is seen and acknowledged to be just. The sacred writers of the New Testament often depart from the words of the Old Testament in their citations, being careful only to give the mind of the Spirit. “Scimus,” says Calvin, “apostolos in recitandis Scripturae verbis saepe esse liberiores; quia satis habebant si ad rem apposite citarent; quare non tanta illis fuit verborum religio.”

return to '

Romans 3:5

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall he then say? Ἀδικία is not to be taken in the restricted sense of injustice, nor as equivalent to ἀπιστία in the preceding verse, but in the comprehensive sense of unrighteousness, wickedness. It is the opposite of δικαιοσύνη, rectitude, righteousness, which includes all moral excellence. The righteousness of God is here, not his goodness, which the context does not require, and usage does not authorize, but rectitude, that attribute which is manifested in doing right. Συνίστημι in the New Testament, is to place with or before any one; and hence either to commend, to recommend, Romans 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 5:12; or to set forth, to render conspicuous; see Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 6:4. The latter is obviously the sense required in the present instance. That this verse is in answer to an objection is obvious; but that objection is not derived from the language of Romans 3:4. Paul had said nothing there to give any color to the suggestion, that he himself held that it would be unrighteous in God to punish the wicked. He had simply said, that the truth of God was to be admitted and acknowledged, though all men were liars. From this it could not be made an inference that we may do evil that good may come. It is not a false inference from Romans 3:4, but a new objection to his general conclusion that he is here answering: ‘Not only is God’s fidelity pledged to our salvation, but the very fact of our being unrighteous will render his righteousness the more conspicuous; and consequently it would be unjust in him to punish us for what glorifies himself.’ This is the thought; the form in which it is presented is determined by the fact that the apostle does not introduce the person of the objector, but states the objection in his own person, in the form of a question. It is plain, however, that the point of the argument is that God cannot consistently punish those whose unrighteousness serves to display his own rectitude; and this is supposed to be urged to show that the Jews, notwithstanding their sins, were not exposed to condemnation. If our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God is the suggestion; the inference, which the Jews were disposed to draw, and which Paul asks, whether they would venture to make, is that God is unjust who taketh vengeance: ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὁργήν, God the taker of vengeance; he whose prerogative it is to inflict the punishment due to sin. That the apostle is not in this verse expressing his own sentiments, he intimates by saying, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω, I speak as a man. This formula, which is of frequent occurrence, means to speak as men are accustomed to speak; and as men are in general wicked, to speak or act after the manner of men, is to speak or act wickedly. It depends, however, entirely on the context whether this idea is implied. When Paul asks, “Are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” 1 Corinthians 3:3 the case is plain. But when in Galatians 3:15 he says, “Brethren, I speak as a man,” he means merely to appeal to what is commonly acknowledged as true among men. See also 1 Corinthians 9:8. When in Romans 6:19 he says ἀνθρώπινον λέγω, it is plain from the context that he means, in a manner adapted to the comprehension of men. And in the present case, where he is not expressing his own sentiments, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω is designed to declare that he is not speaking in his character of an apostle or Christian, but speaking as others speak, expressing their thoughts, not his own.

return to '