聖經註釋書

CHAPTER 3

Romans 3:2. μὲν γάρ] Lachm. following B D* E G, min[723] vss[724], Chrys. Aug. reads ΜΈΝ. The ΓΆΡ was easily lost in consequence of its seeming unnecessary, and of the recollection of Romans 1:8; but is supported by 1 Corinthians 11:18.

Romans 3:9. ΠΡΟΕΧΌΜΕΘΑ] D* G 31, Syr[725] Erp. Chrys. ms. Theodoret have ΠΡΟΚΑΤΈΧΟΜΕΝ (or ΚΑΤΈΧ.) ΠΕΡΙΣΣῸΝ, and, with several other authorities, omit Οὐ ΠΆΝΤΩς. This ΠΡΟΚΑΤ. ΠΕΡΙΣΣ. is an erroneous gloss; and the omission of Οὐ ΠΆΝΤΩς is explained by its being no longer suitable after the adoption of ΤΊ ΟὖΝ ΠΡΟΚΑΤΈΧΟΜΕΝ ΠΕΡΙΣΣΌΝ; see Reiche, Comm. crit.

Romans 3:11. In important codices the article is wanting before συνίων and ἘΚΖΗΤῶΝ. But see LXX. Psalm 14:2.

Romans 3:22. ΚΑῚ ἘΠῚ ΠΆΝΤΑς] is wanting in A B C P א*, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Erp. Clem. Or. Cyr. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But when we consider that a gloss on ΕἸς ΠΆΝΤΑς was quite unnecessary, and on the other hand that ΚΑῚ ἘΠῚ ΠΆΝΤΑς was equally unnecessary to complete the sense, we may assume that the twice repeated ΠΆΝΤΑς may have even at a very early date occasioned the omission of ΚΑῚ ἘΠῚ ΠΆΝΤΑς.

Romans 3:25. Τῆς ΠΊΣΤ.] Τῆς is wanting in C* D* F G א, min[726], and several Fathers (A and Chrys. omit the whole διὰ τ. πίστ.). Suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Still the omission of the article might easily occur if the copyist, as was natural, glanced back at ΔΙᾺ ΠΊΣΤ., Romans 3:22.

Romans 3:26. ΠΡῸς ἜΝΔΕΙΞ.] Following A B C D* P א, min[727], we should read with Lachm. and Tisch. πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξ. The article was passed over in accordance with Romans 3:25.

ἸΗΣΟῦ is wanting in F G 52 It.; and is expanded in other authorities (ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ἸΗΣΟῦ, or ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ ἩΜ. ἸΗΣΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ). Notwithstanding the preponderating testimony in its favour, it is properly deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7. Supplied from looking back to Romans 3:22.

Romans 3:28. ΓΆΡ] Elz. and Tisch. 7. read ΟὖΝ, against very preponderating testimony, by which also the arrangement ΔΙΚ. ΠΊΣΤ. ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ (Elz.: Π. Δ. Ἄ.) is confirmed. Since according to the different modes of apprehending the connection, the emendation might be ΟὖΝ as well as ΓΆΡ, external attestation only can here be regarded as decisive.

Romans 3:29. The reading ΜΌΝΩΝ (so Tisch. 7. instead of ΜΌΝΟΝ) is insufficiently attested by B, min[728] and Fathers; and arose easily out of the context.

οὐχὶ καί] Elz.: ΟὐΧῚ ΔῈ ΚΑΊ, against decisive testimony. The ΔῈ was easily introduced into the text by the contrast, whether the two questions might be taken separately, or together as one.

ἘΠΕΊΠΕΡ] A B C D** א, min[729], Clem. Or. Cyr. Didym. Damasc.: εἴπερ. Recommended by Griesb.; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily may the ἘΠΕΊΠΕΡ, only occurring here in the N. T., and therefore unfamiliar to the copyists, have been exchanged for the familiar ΕἼΠΕΡ!

[723] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[724] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

[725] yr. Peschito Syriac

[726] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[727] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[728] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[729] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

,[730] 2

[730] On chap. 3 see Matthias, exeget. Abhandlung über vv. 1–20 (a school-programme), Hanau 1851; and the same author’s work: das dritte Kap. d. Br. an d. Röm., ein exeg. Versuch, Cassel 1857; James Morison, A critical exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Lond. 1866.

Romans 3:1,[731] 2. As an inference (οὖν) from Romans 2:28-29, the objection might now be made from the Jewish standpoint against the Apostle, that he quite does away with the advantage of Judaism and the benefit of circumcision. This objection he therefore raises in his own person, in order to remove it himself immediately, Romans 3:2 ff.

τὸ περισσὸν Κ.Τ.Λ[732]] the superiority (Matthew 5:47; Matthew 11:9; Plat. Ap. S. p. 20 C; Lucian. Prom. 1; Plut. Demosth. 3) of the Jew, i.e. what he has as an advantage over the Gentile, the Jewish surplus. The following ἤ (or, to express it in other words) τίς ἡ ὠφέλ. τ. περιτ. presents substantially the same question in a more specific form.

πολύ] Much, namely, is the περισσόν of the Jew or the benefit of circumcision.[733] The neuter comprehends the answer to both; and it must not therefore be said that it applies only to the first question, leaving the second without further notice. It is moreover clear from what precedes and follows, that Paul meant the ΠΕΡΙΣΣΌΝ not in a moral, but in a theocratic sense; comp Romans 9:4 f.

ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ ΤΡΌΠΟΝ] in every way (Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 30), in whatever light the matter may be considered. See examples in Wetstein. The opposite: κατʼ οὐδένα τρόπον, 2Ma 11:31; Polyb. iv. 84, 8, viii. 27, 2. It is an undue anticipation to take the expression as hyperbolical (Reiche), since we do not know how the detailed illustration, which is only begun, would be further pursued.

πρῶτον] first of all, firstly, it is a prerogative of the Jew, or advantage of circumcision, that etc. The Apostle consequently begins to illustrate the πολύ according to its individual elements, but, just after mentioning the first point, is led away by a thought connected with it, so that all further enumeration (possibly by ΕἾΤΑ, Xen. Mem. iii. 6, 9) is dropped, and not, as Grotius strangely thinks, postponed to Romans 9:4. Compare on Romans 1:8; 1 Corinthians 11:18. As the μέν was evidently meant to be followed by a corresponding ΔΈ, it was a mere artificial explaining away of the interruption of the discourse, to render ΠΡῶΤΟΝ praecipue (Beza, Calvin, Toletus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Koppe, Glöckler, and others; compare also Hofmann: “before all things”), or to say with Th. Schott, that it indicates the basis from which the πολύ follows.

ὅτι ἐπιστ. τ. λόγια τ. Θεοῦ] that they (the Jews) were entrusted with the utterances of God, namely, in the holy Scriptures given to them, devoutly to preserve these λόγια as a Divine treasure, and to maintain them for all ages of God’s people as their and their children’s (comp Acts 2:39) possession. On the Greek form of expression ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΜΑΊ ΤΙ (1 Corinthians 9:17; Galatians 2:7), see Winer, p. 244 [E. T. 326].

ΤᾺ ΛΌΓΙΑ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] eloquia Dei. That by this general expression (χρησμοὺς αὐτοίς ἄνωθεν κατηνεχθέντας, Chrysostom), which always receives its more precise definition from the context (Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11; compare the passages from the Septuagint in Schleusner, Thes. III. p. 464, from Philo in Loesner, p. 248; and see especially Bleek on Heb. II. 2, p. 114 f.), Paul means here κατʼ ἐξοχὴν the Messianic prophetic-utterances, is shown by Romans 3:3, where the ἀπιστία of the Jews leaves no room for mistake as to the contents of the ΛΌΓΙΑ. Compare ΑἹ ἘΠΑΓΓΕΛΊΑΙ, Romans 9:4. These ΛΌΓΙΑ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ are contained not merely in the prophets proper (Acts 3:24), but even in the Pentateuch (covenant with Abraham, the promise of Moses); yet the law is not meant, nor even jointly included (Matthias), against which Romans 3:3 testifies. Just as little is there meant: all making known of God in the history of salvation” (Hofmann), which is too general, and is extended by Hofmann even to the New Testament revelations. Regarding the classic use of λόγια,[736] prophecies, see Krüger on Thuc. ii. 8, 2, and generally Locella, a[737] Xen. Eph. p. 152 f.

[731] On chap. 3 see Matthias, exeget. Abhandlung über vv. 1–20 (a school-programme), Hanau 1851; and the same author’s work: das dritte Kap. d. Br. an d. Röm., ein exeg. Versuch, Cassel 1857; James Morison, A critical exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Lond. 1866.

[732] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[733] This answer is the Apostle’s, not the reply of a Jew asserting his περισσόν, whom Paul then interrupts in ver. 4 with μὴ γένοιτο (Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 69)—a breaking up of the text into dialogue, which is neither necessary nor in any way indicated, and which is not supported by any analogy of other passages. According to Mehring Paul has written ver. 2, and in fact onward to ver. 8, as the sentiments of a Jew to be summarily dealt with, who in πρῶτον had it in view to enumerate yet further advantages, but whose mouth was closed by ver. 9. The unforced exposition of the successive verses does not permit this view; and Romans 2:25-29 is not at variance with ver. 2, but, on the contrary, leaves sufficiently open to the Apostle the recognition of Jewish privileges, which he begins to specify; comp. Romans 2:25 and Romans 9:4 f.

[736] The word is not a diminutive form (Philippi, who finds in it the usual brevity of oracular utterances), but the neuter form of λόγιος. The diminutive conception, little utterances, is expressed not by λόγιον, but by λογίδιον, Plat. Eryx. p. 401 E. This applies also in opposition to Morison.

[737] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Romans 3:3. Not an objection to the preceding, but a guarantee of the ἐπιστεύθ. τὰ λόγια τ. Θεοῦ just mentioned, as something that has not been cancelled and revoked through the partial unbelief of the people. “For how? what is the case?[738] If some refused the faith, will their unbelief make void the faithfulness of God?” will it produce the effect that God shall now regard the promises once committed to the Jews as void, and Himself as no longer bound to His word therein pledged? The ἠπίστησαν and the ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ are by the context necessarily referred to the ΛΌΓΙΑ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ; the unbelief of a part of the Jews in the promises manifested itself, namely, by their rejecting the Messiah who had appeared according to the promise. So in substance also Matthias, who nevertheless apprehends the notion of ἈΠΙΣΤ. as unfaithfulness towards what was entrusted to them, which the τίνες did not use for the purpose of letting themselves be led thereby to Christ. But ἈΠΙΣΤΕῖΝ and ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ (even in 2 Timothy 2:13) mean specifically throughout the N. T. (see in this Epistle Romans 4:20, Romans 11:20; Romans 11:23; compare Morison, p. 23) unbelief, not unfaithfulness, although Hofmann also ultimately comes to adopt this notion. This remark also applies against the supposition of Köllner, de Wette, Mehring, and older writers, that Paul meant the unfaithfulness (the disobedience) of the Jews in the times before Christ.[739] Such a view is opposed to the context; and must not the idea, that the earlier breaches of covenant on the part of the Jews might possibly annul the λόγια, have been wholly strange to Paul and his Jewish readers, since they knew from experience that, even when the Jews had heaped unfaithfulness upon unfaithfulness, God always committed to them anew, through His prophets, the promises of the Messiah? In the mind of the Apostle the idea of the πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων was fixed (Romans 3:25; Acts 17:30). Therefore we cannot understand (with Philippi) unbelief in the promises shown in the period before Christ to be here referred to. But according to the doctrine of faith in the promised One who had come, as the condition of the Messianic salvation, the doubt might very easily arise: May not the partial unbelief of the Jews since the appearance of Christ, to whom the λόγια referred, possibly cancel the divine utterances of promise committed to the nation? Notwithstanding the simple and definite conception of ἀπιστεῖν throughout the N. T., Hofmann here multiplies the ideas embraced so as to include as well disobedience to the law as unbelief towards the Gospel and unbelief towards the prophetic word of promise—a grouping together of very different significations, which is the consequence of the erroneous and far too wide sense assigned to the λόγια τ. Θεοῦ.

τὴν πίστιν τ. Θεοῦ] The genitive is necessarily determined to be the genitive of the subject, partly by ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν, partly by Romans 3:4, and partly by Θεοῦ δικαιοσ. in Romans 3:5. Therefore: the fides Dei in keeping the λόγια, keeping His word, in virtue of which He does not abandon His promises to His people.[740] Compare 2 Timothy 2:13, and the frequent πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 1:18 al[741]

Observe further that Paul designates the unbelievers only by τινές, some, which is not contemptuous or ironical (Tholuck, Philippi; compare Bengel), nor intended as a milder expression (Grotius), but is rather employed to place in a stronger light the negation of the effect under discussion; and, considering the relative import of τινές, it is not at variance with the truth, for although there were many (τινές καὶ πολλοί γε, Plat. Phaed. p. 58 D), still they were not all. Compare Romans 11:17, and on 1 Corinthians 10:7; Krüger, § 51, 16, 14.

[738] τί γάρ; compare Php 1:18. Elz., Bengel, and Lachm. place the sign of interrogation after τινές. Van Hengel follows them, also Th. Schott and Hofmann. It is impossible to decide the question. Still, even in classic authors, the τί γάρ; standing alone is frequent, “ubi quis cum alacritate quadam ad novam sententiam transgreditur,” Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 2; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. vi. 60; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 73 f.

[739] Especially would τίνες be quite unsuitable, because it would be absolutely untrue. All were disobedient and unfaithful. See ver. 9 ff.

[740] It is the fides, qua Deus promissis stat, not in reality different from the idea of the ἀληθής in ver. 4. The word πίστις, however, is selected as the correlative of ἀπιστία. Despite the Jewish ἀπιστία it continues the case, not that God has been πίστος (in that, namely, He has spoken among the people, Hofmann thinks), but that He is πίστος, in that, namely, He does not allow Himself to be moved by that ἀπιστία τινων to become likewise ἄπιστος, which He would be, if He left His own λόγια committed to the Jews unfulfilled. He will not allow this case of the annulling of His πίστις to occur. Compare 2 Timothy 2:13.

[741] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Romans 3:4. Let it not be (far be it)! but God is to be truthful, i.e. His truthfulness is to be the actual result produced (namely, in the carrying out of His Messianic plan of salvation), and every man a liar. To this it shall come; the development of the holy divine economy to this final state of the relation between God and men, is what Paul knows and wishes.

μὴ γένοιτο] The familiar formula of negation by which the thing asked is repelled with abhorrence, corresponding to the חָלִילָה (Genesis 44:17; Joshua 22:29; 1 Samuel 20:2), is used by Paul particularly often in our Epistle, elsewhere in Galatians 2:17; Galatians 3:21, 1 Corinthians 6:15, always in a dialectic discussion. In the other writings of the N. T. it occurs only at Luke 20:16, but is current in later Greek authors (Raphel, Arrian. in loc[742]; Sturz, de dial. Al. p. 204).

γινέσθω] not equivalent to ΦΑΝΕΡΟΎΣΘΩ, ἈΠΟΔΕΙΚΝΎΣΘΩ (Theophylact), but the historical result which shall come to pass, the actual Theodicée that shall take place. This indeed in reality amounts to a φανεροῦσθαι, but it is expressed by ΓΙΝΈΣΘΩ, according to its objective reality, which demonstrates itself. In that which God (and man) does, He becomes actually what according to His nature He is.

πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρ. ψεύστ.] By no means unessential (Rückert), or merely a concomitant circumstance (Th. Schott), is designed, and that all the more forcibly without a preceding ΜΈΝ, to appropriate the ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ exclusively to God, in contrast to ἠπίστ. τινες, Romans 3:3, outbidding this ΤΙΝΈς by Πᾶς. Every man is a liar, if he does not perform the service to which he has become bound, as is brought to light in the case of the τινές by their ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ, since as members of the people of God they had bound themselves to faith in the divine promises. That Paul had Psalm 116:11 in view (Calvin, Wolf, and many others) is the more doubtful, seeing that he immediately quotes another passage.

ὅπως ἂν δικ. Κ.Τ.Λ[743]] Psalm 51:6 exactly after the LXX. Independently of the more immediate connection and sense of the original text, Paul seizes on the type of the relation discussed by him, which is involved in the words of the Psalm, in the form in which they are reproduced by the LXX.[744] and that in the sense: that thou mayest be justified, i.e. acknowledged as faultless and upright, in thy words, and prevail (in substance the same as the previous δικαιωθῇς) when thou disputest, namely, with men against whom thou defendest and followest out thy right. From this second clause results that Πᾶς ΔῈ ἌΝΘΡ. ΨΕΎΣΤΗς. The exact appropriateness of this view in the connection is decisive against the explanation commonly adopted formerly after the Vulgate and Luther, and again preferred by Mehring, which takes ΚΡΊΝΕΣΘΑΊ as passive (when thou art subjected to judgment). On the use of the middle, to dispute with, compare LXX. Job 9:3; Job 13:19, and other passages in Schleusner, Thes. III. p. 385 f. This use has been properly maintained by Beza, Bengel, and others; also Matthias, Tholuck, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann, and Morison. Compare 1 Corinthians 6:1; Matthew 5:40.

ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου] i.e. in that which thou hast spoken. And that is the category to which those ΛΌΓΙΑ belong, as to which the Apostle has just repelled the idea that God will not keep them on account of the ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ of the ΤΙΝΈς and will thereby prove untrue. The sense “in sententia ferenda,” when thou passest a sentence (Philippi), cannot be taken out of ἐν τ. λόγ. σου, since God is not represented as judge, but as litigant, over whom the justifying judicial decision is pronounced. The view of Hofmann is also erroneous: that it denotes the accusations, which God may bring against men. For the text represents God indeed as the party gaining the verdict and prevailing, but not as the accuser preferring charges; and the λόγοι, in respect of which He is declared justified, point back so directly to the λόγια in Romans 3:2, that this very correlation has occasioned the selection of the particular passage from Psalms 51

νικᾶν, like vincere, used of prevailing in a process; compare Xen. Mem. iv. 4, 17; Dem. 1436, 18 al[745] The opposite: ἩΤΤᾶΣΘΑΙ

On ὍΠΩς (here in order that in the event of decision) see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 286, 289; Klotz, a[746] Devar. p. 685.

[742] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[743] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[744] The inaccuracies in the translation of the LXX. must be candidly acknowledged; still they do not yield any essential difference of sense from the idea of the original text. These inaccuracies consist in תִּזְכֶּה (insons sis) being rendered in the LXX. by νικήσης, and בְשָׁפְטֶךָ (cum judicas) being translated ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε.

[745] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[746] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Romans 3:5-6. In Romans 3:3-4 it was declared that the unbelief of a part of the Jews would not make void the truthfulness of God, but that, on the contrary, the latter should be triumphantly justified. But how easily might this be misconstrued by a Jew of the common type as a pretext for his immorality: “the unrighteousness of man in fact brings out more clearly the righteousness of God, and therefore may not be righteously punished by God!” To preclude this misconception and false inference, which so abruptly run counter to his doctrine of universal human guilt, and to leave no pretext remaining (observe beforehand the τί οὖν; προεχόμεθα in Romans 3:9), Paul, having in view such thoughts of an antagonist, proposes to himself and his readers the question: “But if our unrighteousness show forth the righteousness of God, what shall we say (infer)? Is God then unrighteous, who inflicteth wrath?” And he disposes of it in the first instance by the categorical answer (Romans 3:6): No, otherwise God could not be judge of the world. The assumption, that this question is occasioned really and seriously by what goes before, and called forth from the Apostle himself (Hofmann), is rendered untenable by the very addition κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω.

ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν] Quite general: our unrighteousness, abnormal moral condition. To this general category belongs also the ἀπιστία, Romans 3:3. Paul has regarded the possible Jewish misconception, the notion of which occasions his question, as a general, but for that reason all the more dangerous inference from Romans 3:3-4, in which the words ἀδικία and δικαιοσύνη are suggested by the passage from the Psalms in Romans 3:4.

ἡμῶν] is said certainly in the character of the ἀδικοί in general, and stands in relation to the πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης in Romans 3:4. But as the whole context is directed against the Jews, and the application to these is intended in the general expressions, and indeed expressly made in Romans 3:19, Paul speaks here also in such a way that the Jewish consciousness, from which, as himself a Jew, he speaks, lies at the bottom of the general form of his representation.

The protasis εἰ.… συνίστησι is a concessum, which is in itself correct (Romans 3:4); but the inference, which the Jewish self-justification might draw from it, is rejected with horror. Observe in this protasis the emphatic juxtaposition ἡμῶν Θεοῦ; and in the apodosis the accent which lies on ἄδικος and τὴν ὀργήν.

Θεοῦ δικαιοσ. συνίστησι] proves God’s righteousness (comp Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Galatians 2:18; Susann. 61; frequently in Polyb. Philo, etc.); makes it apparent beyond doubt, that God is without fault, and such as He must be. The contrast to Ἡ ἈΔΙΚΊΑ ἩΜῶΝ requires ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣ. to be taken thus generally, and forbids its being explained of a particular attribute (truth: Beza, Piscator, Estius, Koppe, and others; goodness: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Rosenmuller), as well as its being taken in the sense of Romans 1:17 (van Hengel).

The τί ἐρούμεν (3 Esr. 8:82) is used by Paul only in the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 4:1, Romans 6:1, Romans 7:7, Romans 8:31, Romans 9:14; Romans 9:30). Compare, however, generally on such questions arousing interest and enlivening the representation, Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. 1013, Dissen, a[748] Dem, de cor. p. 346 f.

ΜῊ ἌΔΙΚΟς Ὁ ΘΕῸς Ὁ ἘΠΙΦ. Τ. ὈΡΓΉΝ] This question[749] is so put that (as in Romans 3:3) a negative answer is expected, since Paul has floating before his mind an impious objection conceived of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. See Hermann, a[750] Viger. p. 789, 810; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 159; Baeumlein, p. 302 f. Hence: God is not unrighteous then, who dealeth wrath? This in opposition to Rückert and Philippi, who make the questioner expect an affirmative answer, which can never be the case. In those passages in Greek authors, where an affirmative reply notwithstanding follows, it invariably does so contrary to the expectation of the questioner; see Kühner, II. 2, p. 1024. ἄδικος, prefixed with emphasis, is, on account of its relation to ὁ ἐπιφ. τ. ὀργήν, to be understood in the strict judicial signification unrighteous, which is confirmed by Romans 3:6-7. For examples of ἐπιφέρειν used to express the practical infliction of wrath or punishment see Raphel, Polyb.; Kypke, II. p. 160. The article with the participle indicates the relation as well-known; and τὴν ὀργήν (Sin.* adds αὐτοῦ) denotes the wrath definitely conceived of as judicial, inflicted at the judgment. Compare Ritschl, de ira Dei, p. 15.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω] To preclude his being misunderstood, as if he were asking εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν.… μὴ ἄδικος κ.τ.λ[751] from his own enlightened Christian view, Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this according to a human standard (Bernhardy, p. 241), after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in accordance with mere human reason. Compare 1 Corinthians 9:8; Galatians 3:15; Soph. Aj. 761: κατʼ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ. “I say this just as an ordinary man, not under the influence of the divine Spirit, may well say it.” Respecting the expression ΚΑΤᾺ ἌΝΘΡ., which is capable according to the context of great variety of meaning, compare Fritzsche in loc[752] It is wrongly inferred from ΚΑΤᾺ ἌΝΘΡ. ΛΈΓΩ that the question ΜῊ ἌΔΙΚΟς Κ.Τ.Λ[753] was meant to receive an affirmative answer, because as a negative query it would not be κατὰ ἄνθρ. (see Philippi). But this view overlooks the fact that the whole thought, which is implied in the question calculated though it is for a negative reply,—the thought of the unrighteousness of God in punishing—can in fact only be put into expression κατὰ ἄνθρωπον; in the higher Christian insight a conception so blasphemous and deserving of abhorrence can find neither place nor utterance. The apology however, involved in κατὰ ἄνθρ. λέγω, is applicable only to what goes before, not to what follows, to which Mehring, Th. Schott and Hofmann refer it. This is the more obvious, since what immediately follows is merely a repudiating μὴ γένοιτο, and the ἐπεί κ.τ.λ[754], which assigns the ground for this repudiation, is by no means an idea outside the range of revelation, the application of which to a rational inference, and one too so plainly right, cannot transfer it to the lower sphere of the κατὰ ἄνθρ. λέγειν.

Romans 3:6. ἘΠΕΊ] gives the ground of the ΜῊ ΓΈΝΟΙΤΟ; for (if the God who inflicts wrath is unrighteous) how will it be possible that He shall judge the world? The future is to be left in its purely future sense, since it refers to a future act taking place at any rate, as to which the only difficulty would be to see how it was to be accomplished, if, etc. On ἐπεί, for otherwise, see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 308. κρινεῖ has the emphasis.

ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ is to be taken, with most expositors, generally as meaning all mankind (compare Romans 3:19). To be judge of the world and yet, as ἐπιφέρων τ. ὀργ., to be ἌΔΙΚΟς, is a contradiction of terms; the certainty that God is the former would become an impossibility if He were the latter. Compare Genesis 18:25. Koppe, Reiche, Schrader, Olshausen, and Jatho, following older authorities, take it only of the Gentile world (Romans 11:12; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 11:32): “In that case God could not punish even the Gentile world for its idolatry, since it is only in contrast therewith that the true worship of God appears in its full value” (Reiche) But, in this explanation, the very essential idea: “since.… appears” has first of all to be imported, an expedient which, in presence of the simplicity and clearness of our view, cannot but seem arbitrary. Even the following proof, Romans 3:7 f., does not present a reference directly to the judgment of the Gentiles. The argument itself rests on the premiss that God can carry out the judgment of the world only as One who is righteous in His decreeing of wrath. The opposite would be impossible, not only subjectively, in God Himself (Th. Schott), but also objectively, as standing in contradiction to the notion of a world-judgment. See Romans 3:7 f. This proposition however is so perfectly certain to the consciousness of faith, out of which Paul asserts it, that there is no ground either for complaining of the weakness of the proof (Rückert), or for reading the thoughts that form the proof between the lines (Fritzsche and Mehring, with varying arbitrariness); the more especially as afterwards, in Romans 3:7, a still further confirmation of the ἐπεί.… κόσμον follows.

[748] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[749] After μή, ἐροῦμεν is not again to be understood, and then ἄδικος κ.τ.λ. to be taken as a question ensuing thereon (Mangold, p. 106). A breaking up of the construction without due ground. Compare, rather, Romans 9:14, a passage which in form also is perfectly parallel to this one.

[750] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[751] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[752] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[753] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[754] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 3:7 f. The ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τ. κόσμ. receives its illustrative confirmation; for as to the case of God, who would thus be unrighteous and nevertheless is to judge the world, every ground for judging man as a sinner must be superseded by the circumstance already discussed, viz. that His truth has been glorified by man’s falsehood (Romans 3:4 f.); and (Romans 3:8) as to the case of man himself, there would result the principle directly worthy of condemnation, that he should do evil in order that good might come. Comp Th. Schott, and in substance also Hofmann and Morison. The argument accordingly rests on the basis, that in the case put (ἘΠΕΊ from Romans 3:6) the relation of God to the judgment of the world would yield two absurd consequences. (See this, as early as Chrysostom.) Another view is that of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, including Rückert, Kollner, Tholuck, Philippi and Umbreit, that the objection of Romans 3:5 is here amplified. But it is quite as arbitrary and in fact impossible (hence Philippi resorts to the violent expedient of putting in a parenthesis not only ΚΑΤᾺ ἌΝΘΡ. ΛΈΓΩ, but also ΜῊ ΓΈΝΟΙΤΟ.… ΚΌΣΜΟΝ), with the reference of ΓΆΡ, to overleap entirely Romans 3:6, as it is strange to make the discourse so completely abrupt and to represent the Apostle as making no reply at all to the first part of the alleged amplification of the objection (to Romans 3:7), and as replying to the second part (Romans 3:8) only by an anathema, sit! (ὧν τ. κρ. ἔνδ. ἔ.). Against the view of Reiche, who, following Koppe, Rosenmüller, and Flatt, thinks that the Gentile is introduced as speaking in Romans 3:7 (compare Olshausen), we may decisively urge the close connection therewith of Romans 3:8, where Paul includes himself also, but does not “take speech in hand again” (Reiche). See besides on τὸν κόσμον, Romans 3:6.

ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ and ΨΕΎΣΜΑΤΙ are terms chosen in reference to Romans 3:4, because the question proposed in Romans 3:5 was in fact suggested by that verse; but they represent, as Romans 3:5 proves, the ideas of ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ and ἈΔΙΚΊΑ; hence: the moral truth, i.e. the holy righteousness of God (see on John 3:21; Ephesians 5:9; Php 4:8), and the moral falsehood, i.e. the immorality (Revelation 22:15), wickedness of man.[756]

ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς τ. δόξ. αὐτοῦ] has abounded richly to His glory, that is, has shown itself in superabundant measure, which redounds to His glory. The stress of this protasis lies on ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι.

The aorist denotes the result of the having abounded, which subsists at the day of judgment (realised as present by τί.… κρίνομαι) as up to that point accomplished fact.

ἔτι] namely, after that assumed result has occurred.

κἀγώ] emphasising the contradictory relation to the contents of the protasis, according to which this ἐγώ seems actually to have deserved something of God: even I (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 150) who have notwithstanding glorified God through my ψεύσμα. So in substance (“just I” according to Hermann, a[757] Viger. p. 837) also Tholuck and Morison; compare Philippi: “even I still.” There lies in the expression something of boldness and defiance; but it is not equivalent to καὶ αὐτός, or αὐτός ἐγώ, to the meaning of which Th. Schott and Hofmann ultimately bring it (“even personally still”). We may add that this first person, individualising just like the preceding one (ἐν τ. ἐμῷ ψ.), of course represents the sinner in general (with an intended application to the Jews, see on Romans 3:5 f), and not the Apostle himself, as Schrader and Fritzsche think. Against this latter theory it is decisive that κρίνομαι after Romans 3:6 must indicate, not the judgment of enemies, but necessarily the divine act of judging.

ὡς ἁμαρτ.] as a sinner, not “as a Gentile” (Reiche, Mehring), and others.

Romans 3:8. καὶ μή] Before μή we must again supply τί: and why should we not, etc. Respecting τί μή, quidni, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 162. Accordingly, as καί continues the question, only a comma is to be placed after κρίνομαι.

As regards the construction, Paul has dropped the plan of the sentence begun with καὶ μή (and why should we not do evil, etc.), being led away from it by the inserted remark, and has joined ὅτι ποιήσωμεν in direct address (let us do) to the λέγειν, so that ὅτι is recitative. But on account of this very blending there is no necessity either to make a parenthesis or to supply anything. For similar attractions (compare especially Xen. Anab. vi. 4, 18) in which the discourse is interrupted by an intervening clause, and then continued in a regimen dependent on the latter and no longer suitable to the beginning, see Hermann a[758] Viger. p. 745, 894; Bernhardy, p. 464; Dissen, a[759] Dem. de cor. p. 346, 418; Krüger, gramm. Unters. p. 457 ff. Many erroneous attempts have been made by commentators (see the various explanations in Morison) to bring out an unbroken construction, as e.g. the supplying of ἐροῦμεν or some such word after μή (Erasmus, Calvin, Wolf, Koppe, Benecke, and others, also van Hengel). Even the expedient of Matthias is untenable.[760] The same may be said of that of Hofmann, who supplies an ἐστίν after καὶ μή, and renders: “Why does it not happen to me according to that, as (καθώς) we are slandered,” etc. But if it is quite gratuitous to supply ἐστί, it is still more so to make this ἐστί equivalent to γίνεται μοι. Besides the negation, which, according to our construction, harmonises with the deliberative sense, would necessarily be not μή but οὐ, since it would negative the reality of the εἶναι understood (1 Corinthians 6:7; Luke 19:23; Luke 20:5 al[761]). The correct view is held also by Winer and Buttmann (p. 235, 211), Philippi and Morison.

καθὼς βλασφημ.] as we (Christians) are calumniated, namely, as if we did evil in order that, etc. Then the following καὶ καθὼς.… λέγειν contains the accusation, current possibly in Rome also, that the Christians were in the habit of repeating this maxim even as a doctrinal proposition. As to the distinction between φημί (to assert) and λέγω, compare on 1 Corinthians 10:15. What may have occasioned such slanders against the Christians? Certainly their non-observance of the Mosaic law, to which they ventured to deem themselves not bound, in order to gain eternal life by the grace of God through faith in the redemptive work of Christ, which was an offence to the Jews. The plural is not to be referred to Paul alone, which would be arbitrary on account of the preceding singular; the Christians are conceived as Pauline (comp Acts 21:21); and on the part of Jews and Judaizers (τινές, certain people, as in 1 Corinthians 15:12) are slanderously and falsely (for see Romans 5:20, Romans 6:1; Romans 6:15 ff.) accused of doing evil that good might come (might ensue as result). Under this general category, namely, the calumniators reduced the bearing of the Christians, so far as the latter, without regulating their conduct by the Mosaic law, were nevertheless assured, and professed, that they should through faith in Christ obtain the divine blessings of salvation. That general accusation was an injurious abstract inference thence deduced.

ὧν] i.e. of those, who follow this principle destructive of the whole moral order of God. They form the nearest logical subject. With just indignation the Apostle himself, having a deep sense of morality, makes us feel in conclusion by ὧν τὸ κρῖμα κ.τ.λ[763] how deserving of punishment is the consequence, which, if God be regarded as an unrighteous judge of the world, must ensue for moral conduct from the premiss that God is glorified by the sin of men. The reference of ὧν to the slanderers (Theodoret, Grotius, Tholuck, Mehring, Hofmann) is unsuitable, because it separates the weighty closing sentence from the argumentation itself, and makes it merely an accessory thought.

τὸ κρῖμα] The definite judicial sentence, decree of punishment at the last judgment.

ἜΝΔΙΚΟΝ] accordant with justice, rightful. Compare Hebrews 2:2. Frequently used in classic writers.

[756] Those who take ver. 7 f. as spoken in the person of the Gentile (see especially Reiche) explain the ἀλήθεια Θεοῦ of the true religion (how entirely opposed to ver. 4!), ψεύσματι of idolatry, and ἁμαρτωλός as Gentile.

[757] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[758] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[759] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[760] He brings forward the modal definition: ὡς ἁμαρτωλός as the main element; then the modality of the κρίνομαι opposed to this is καὶ μὴ καθὼς βλασφημ. κ.τ.λ.: “Why then am even I still judged like a sinner, and not rather according to that, which we are slanderously reported of, and which some affirm that we say: namely, according to this, Let us do evil, that good may come?” Instead of saying: καὶ μὴ ὡς ποιήσας τὰ ἀγαθά, Paul, in the indignation of excited feeling, gives to the thought which he had begun the different turn which it presents in the text. With this artificial interpretation, we must remember that Paul would have written καὶ οὐ instead of καὶ μή, since it is an objective relation that is here in question (compare Colossians 2:8 al.); that instead of καθώς we should have expected the repetition of the ὡς; and that the notion of κρίνειν, as it prevails in the connection (compare also the following τὸ κρῖμα), does not suit the assumed thought, ὡς ποιήσας τὰ ἀγαθά. Comp. also Morison, p. 79.

[761] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[763] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 3:9. When Paul, in Romans 3:6-8, has defended the righteousness of God as decreeing wrath (Romans 3:5) in the face of the proposition, correct in itself, that human sin turns out to God’s glory, he has thereby also deprived the sinner of all the defence, which he might derive from the misapplication of that proposition. This position of the case, as it results from Romans 3:6-8 (οὖν), he now expresses, and that in the lively form of an interrogation, here accompanied by a certain triumph: What then? Are we in the position to apply a defence for ourselves? We cannot therefore with most expositors (including Tholuck, Philippi, Bisping) assume that Paul here reverts to Romans 3:1.

That the punctuation should not be τί οὖν προεχόμεθα; (as it is given by Oecumenius, l, Koppe, Th. Schott) is plain from the answer, which is not οὐδὲν πάντως. but οὐ πάντως. And that in adopting the general inclusive form Paul speaks from the standpoint of the Jewish consciousness, and not in the person of the Christians (Hofmann), is apparent from the context both before (see Romans 3:3; Romans 3:5; Romans 3:7) and after (ʼΙουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλλ., and see Romans 3:19).

τί οὖν] sc[764] ἐστί (Acts 21:22; 1 Corinthians 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:26), what takes place then? how is then the state of the case? Compare Romans 6:15, Romans 11:7; frequent in classical writers; comp on Romans 3:3; Romans 3:5.

ΠΡΟΕΧΌΜΕΘΑ] Do we put forward (anything) in our defence? Is it the case with us, that something serves us as a defence, that can secure us against the punitive righteousness of God? προέχειν, which in the active form means to hold before, to have in advance, to bring forward, and intransitively to be prominent, also to excel (see Wetstein, also Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 24), has in the middle simply the signification to hold before oneself, to have before oneself, either in the proper sense, e.g. of holding forth spears for defence (Hom. Il. xvii. 355), or of having oxen in front (Od. iii. 8), or of holding in front the ram’s head (Herod. ii. 42), etc., or in the ethical sense: to put forward, πρόσχημα ποιεῖθαι, to apply something for one’s own defence, as in Soph. Ant. 80: σὺ μὲν τάδʼ ἂν προὔχοιʼ, Thuc. i. 140, 5 and Krüger in loc[766], and also Valckenaer, a[767] fr. Callim. p. 227. More frequent in Greek writers is the form ΠΡΟΐΣΧΕΣΘΑΙ, in this sense, as e.g. Thuc. i. 26, 2. Compare also πρόφασιν προΐσχεσθαι, Herod. vi. 117, viii. 3; Herodian, iv. 14, 3; Dem. in Schol. Hermog. p. 106, 16 : προΐσχεσθαι νόμον. This sense of the word is therefore rightly urged by Hemsterhuis, Venema, Koppe, Benecke, Fritzsche (“utimurne praetextu?”), Krehl, Ewald, Morison; compare also Th. Schott. This explanation is the only one warranted by linguistic usage,[768] as well as suited to the connection (see above). The most usual rendering (adopted by Tholuck, Köllner, de Wette, Rückert, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Baur, Umbreit, Jatho, and Mangold) is that of the Peschito and Vulgate (praecellimus eos?), and of Theophylact: ἐχομέν τι πλέον.… καὶ εὐδοκιμοῦμεν οἱ ʼΙουδαῖοι, ὡς τόν νόμον καὶ τὴν περιτομὴν δεξάμενοι. Compare Theodoret: ΤΊ ΟὖΝ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΜΕΝ ΠΕΡΙΣΣΌΝ; Philippi: “Have we any advantage for ourselves?” and now also Hofmann (who held the right view formerly in his Schriftbew. I. p. 501): “Do we raise ourselves above those, upon whom God decrees His judgment of wrath?” But the mere usus loquendi, affording not a single instance of the middle employed with the signification antecellere, raising oneself above, surpassing, or the like, decisively condemns this usual explanation in its different modifications.[769] And would not the answer οὐ πάντως, in whatever sense we take it, so long as agreeably to the context we continue to understand as the subject the Jewish, not the Christian we (as Hofmann takes it), be at variance with the answer πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον given in Romans 3:2? The shifts of expositors to escape this inconsistency (the usual one being that Paul here means subjective advantages in respect of justification, while in Romans 3:2 he treats of objective theocratic advantages) are forced expedients, which, not at all indicated by any clause of more precise definition on the part of Paul himself, only cast suspicion on the explanation. Wetstein, Michaelis, Cramer, Storr, and recently Matthias, take προεχ. as the passive: are surpassed: “Stand we (at all) at a disadvantage? Are we still surpassed by the Gentiles?” Compare Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 19; Plut. Mor. p. 1038 C. But how could this question be logically inferred from the foregoing without the addition of other thoughts? And in what follows it is not the sinful equality of the Gentiles with the Jews, but that of the Jews with the Gentiles which is made conspicuous. See also Romans 3:19. Mehring, in thorough opposition to the context, since not a single hint of a transition to the Gentiles is given, makes the question (comp Oecumenius, 2), and that in the sense “Are we at a disadvantage?” be put into the mouth even of a Gentile.

οὐ πάντως] Vulgate: nequaquam; Theophylact: οὐδαμῶς. This common rendering (compare the French point de tout) is, in accordance with the right explanation of προεχόμεθα, the only proper one. The expression, instead of which certainly ΠΆΝΤΩς Οὐ might have been used (1 Corinthians 16:12), is quite analogous to the οὐ πάνυ, where it means in no wise,[771] as in Xen. Mem. iii. 1, 11; Anab. i. 8, 14; Herodian, vi. 5, 11; Dem. Ol. iii. 21; Plat. Lach. p. 189 C; Lucian, Tim. 24 (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 87), so that the negative is not transposed, and yet it does not cancel the idea of the adverb, but on the contrary is strengthened by the adverb. By this means the emphatic affirmation, which would have been given by the πάντως alone, is changed into the opposite.[772] Compare Winer, p. 515 f. [E. T. 693]. The comparison with כל—לא (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 334) is utterly foreign, since the expression is a pure Greek one. Compare Theognis, 305, Bekker: οἱ κακοὶ οὐ πάντως (by no means) κακοὶ ἐκ γαστρὸς γεγόνασιν. Ep. ad Diogn. 9 : Οὐ ΠΆΝΤΩς ἘΦΗΔΌΜΕΝΟς (by no means rejoicing) ΤΟῖς ἉΜΑΡΤΉΜΑΣΙΝ ἩΜῶΝ, ἈΛΛʼ ἈΝΕΧΌΜΕΝΟς. Perfectly similar is also the Homeric Οὐ ΠΆΜΠΑΝ, decidedly not; see Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 146, ed. 3; Duncan, Lex. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 888. Compare οὐδὲν πάντως, Herod. v. 34, 65. The explanation, on which van Hengel also insists: not altogether, not in every respect (Grotius, Wetstein, Morus, Flatt, Köllner, Matthias, Umbreit, Mehring and Mangold), as in 1 Corinthians 5:10, fails to tally with the true explanation of ΠΡΟΕΧΌΜΕΘΑ and the unrestricted character of the following proof.

ΠΡΟῌΤΙΑΣΆΜΕΘΑ] namely, not just from Romans 3:5 onward (Hofmann), but, in accordance with the following ἸΟΥΔΑΊΟΥς ΤΕ Κ. ἝΛΛΗΝΑς, in Romans 2:1 ff. as to the Jews, and in Romans 1:18 ff. as to the Gentiles.[773] It is therefore as in Romans 1:5 and frequently elsewhere, the plural of the author, not: we Christians (Hofmann). As to the construction, πάντας may either be joined as an adjective to ἸΟΥΔ. Τ. Κ. ἝΛΛ., or as a substantive to the infinitive, in either case expressing the idea of all collectively, nemine excepto. The latter mode of connection is preferable, because it gives a more marked prominence to the idea of totality, which harmonises with the following Romans 3:10-12. Hence: we have before brought the charge against Jews and Gentiles, that all, etc. Comp Hofmann and Morison. There is elsewhere no instance of the compound ΠΡΟΑΙΤ.; the Greeks use ΠΡΟΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΕῖΝ.

ὙΦʼ ἉΜΑΡΤ. ΕἾΝΑΙ] They are—while still unregenerate, a more precise definition that is self-evident—all under sin, an expression denoting not merely a state of sin in general, but moral dependence on the power of sin. Compare Romans 7:25; Galatians 3:22. But if this be the case with Jews and Gentiles (not merely on the Gentile side), then the Jew, after the way of escape indicated in Romans 3:5 has been cut off by Romans 3:6-8, has no defence left to him as respects his liability to punishment any more than the Gentile.[775] Accordingly the idea of liability to punishment is not yet expressed in ὑφʼ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι, but is meant only to be inferred from it.

[764] c. scilicet.

[766] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[767] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[768] Also adopted by Valck. Schol. in Luc. p. 258. Still he would read προεχώμεθα and take τί οὖν προεχ. together. But the absolute position of προεχ., which has been made an objection to our explanation (Rückert, Tholuck, de Wette, Philippi, Hofmann), does not affect it, since all verbs, if the object be self-evidently implied in the idea itself, may be used so that we can mentally supply a τί (Winer, p. 552 [E. T. 742]). And the subjunctive, which van Hengel also regards as necessary with our view, is not required; the indicative makes the question more definite and precise (Winer, p. 267 [E. T. 354]). Ewald likewise reads τί οὖν προεχώμεθα (subjunctive); but expunges γάρ afterwards, and takes οὐ interrogatively, “What shall we now put forward in defence? did we not already, at the outset, prove altogether that Jews,” etc. But the omission of γάρ is only supported by D*. Van Hengel despairs of a proper explanation, and regards the text as corrupt.

[769] Reiche (and similarly Olshausen) retains the same exposition in his exegetical Commentary; but takes προεχ. as passive, are preferred, referring in support of his view to Plut. de Stoic. contrad. 13 (Mor. p. 1038 C), where, however, in τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς πᾶσι ταῦτα προσήκει κατʼ οὐδὲν προεχομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, the meaning of this προεχομένοις is becoming surpassed. In his Commentar. crit. I. p. 26 ff., he has passed over to the linguistically correct rendering praetexere, but understands nevertheless the first person of Paul himself, and that in the sense: “Numbers Judaeis peccandi praetextum porrigo?” But the middle means invariably to hold something (for protection) before oneself; as προφασίζομαι also, by which Hesychius properly explains the word, always refers to the subject, which excuses itself by a pretext.

[771] Those passages where οὐ πάνυ negatives with a certain subtlety or ironical turn (not quite, not just), are not cases here in point; see Schoemann, ad Is. p. 276.

[772] Bengel: “Judaeus diceret πάντως, at Paulus contradicit.”

[773] Paul however does not say Gentiles and Jews, but the converse, because here again, as in previous cases where both are grouped together (in the last instance Romans 2:9 f.), he has before his mind the divine historical order, which in the very point of sinfulness tells against the Jew the more seriously.

[775] For statements of Greek writers regarding the universality, without any exception, of sin see Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 220 f.

Romans 3:10-18. Conformity with Scripture of the charge referred to, Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλλην. πάντ. ὑφʼ ἁμ. εἶναι, so far (Romans 3:19) as this charge cuts off from the Jews every προέχεσθαι of Romans 3:9.

The recitative ὅτι introduces citations from Scripture very various in character, which after the national habit (Surenhusius, καταλλ. thes. 7) are arranged in immediate succession. They are taken from the LXX., though for the most part with variations, partly due to quotation from memory, and partly intentional, for the purpose of defining the sense more precisely. The arrangement is such that testimony is adduced for—1st, the state of sin generally (Romans 3:10-12); 2nd, the practice of sin in word (Romans 3:13-14) and deed (Romans 3:15-17); and 3rd, the sinful source of the whole (Romans 3:18). More artificial schemes of arrangement are not to be sought (as e.g. in Hofmann), not even by a play on numbers.[776]

οὐκ ἔστι δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς] There exists not a righteous person (who is such as he ought to be), not even one. Taken from Psalm 14:1, where the Sept. has ποιῶν χρηστότητα instead of δίκαιος; Paul has put the latter on purpose at once, in accordance with the aim of his whole argument, prominently to characterise the ὑφʼ ἁμαρτ. εἶναι as a want of δικαιοσύνη. Michaelis regards the words as the Apostle’s own, “under which he comprehends all that follows.” So also Eckermann, Koppe, Köllner and Fritzsche. But it is quite at variance with the habit of the Apostle, after using the formula of quotation, to prefix to the words of Scripture a summary of their contents; and this supposition is here the more improbable, seeing that the Apostle continues in Romans 3:11 in the words of the same Psalm, with the first verse of which our passage substantially agrees.

Regarding οὐδὲ εἷς see on 1 Corinthians 6:5, and Stallbaum, a[777] Plat. Symp. p. 214 D.

Romans 3:11 is from Psalm 14:2, and so quoted, that the negative sense which results indirectly from the text in the Hebrew and LXX. is expressed by Paul directly: there exists not the understanding one (the practically wise, i.e. the pious one; see Gesenius, Thes. s. v. חָכָם): there exists not the seeker after God (whose thoughts and endeavours are directed towards God, Hebrews 11:6, and see Gesenius, s. v. דָרַשׁ). The article denotes the genus as a definite concrete representing it. Compare Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 253 f. On the idea, which is also classical, of sin as folly, see Nägelsbach, Hom. Theol. VI. 2.

The form ΣΥΝΊΩΝ (so accentuated by Lachmann; compare Buttmann, I. p. 543), or ΣΥΝΙῶΝ (though the former is the more probable; compare Winer, p. 77 f. [E. T. 97], also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 768), is the usual one in the Sept. (instead of συνιείς, Psalm 33:15). Psalm 41:1; Jeremiah 30:12; 2 Chronicles 34:12 et al[778]

ἘΚΖΗΤ.] stronger than the simple form; compare 1 Peter 1:10; very frequent in the LXX.

Romans 3:12. From Psalm 14:3 closely after the LXX. ἘΞΈΚΛΙΝΑΝ, namely from the right way, denotes the demoralisation (see Gesenius, s. v. םוּד), as does also ἨΧΡΕΙΏΘΗΣΑΝ, נֶאֱלָחוּ: they have become useless, corrupt, good for nothing, ἀχρεῖοι (Matthew 25:30); Polyb. i. 14, 6, i. 48, 9. The following ποιῶν χρηστότητα is correlative. This ἅμα (altogether) ἨΧΡΕΙΏΘ. has still ΠΆΝΤΕς for its subject.

ἝΩς ἙΝΌς] The ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ holds as far as to one (inclusively), so that therefore not one is excepted. Compare Jdg 4:16. Hebraism, see Ewald, Lehrb. § 217, 3. The Latin ad unum omnes is similar.

Romans 3:13 as far as ἐδολ. is from Psalm 5:10, and thence till αὐτῶν from Psalm 140:4, both closely after the LXX.[779]

τάφος ἀνεῳγμ. ὁ λάρ. αὐτ.] Estius: “Sicut sepulcrum patens exhalat tetrum ac pestiferum foetorem, ita ex ore illorum impuri, pestilentes noxiique sermones exeunt.” Comp Pelagius, Bengel, Tholuck, Mehring and Hofmann. But it is more in harmony with the further description, as well as the parallel in Jeremiah 5:16 (where the quiver of the Chaldeans is compared with an open grave), to find the comparison in the point that, when the godless have opened their throats for lying and corrupting discourse, it is just as if a grave stood opened (observe the perfect) to which the corpse ought to be consigned for decay and destruction.[781] So certainly and unavoidably corrupting is their discourse. Moreover λάρυγξ, which is here to be taken in its original sense, (as organ of speech, not equivalent to φάρυγξ, the gullet) is more forcibly graphic than στόμα, representing the speech as passionate crying. Compare λαρυγγίζειν, Dem. 323, 1, and λαρυγγισμός, of crying lustily.

ἐδολιοῦσαν] they were deceiving. The imperfect denotes what had taken place as continuing up till the present time; and on this form of the third person plural, of very frequent occurrence in the LXX., see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 60; Ahrens, Dial. II. p. 304, I. p. 237.

ἰὸς ἀσπίδων] The poison of asps, a figure for the insidiously corrupting. See similar passages in Alberti, Obss. p. 301.

Romans 3:14 is from Psalm 10:7, taken freely from the LXX., who however with their πικρίας deviate from the Hebrew מִרְמו̇ת, because they either read it otherwise or translated it erroneously.

πικρία, figurative designation of the hateful nature. Comp Ephesians 4:31; Acts 8:23; Jam 3:14; see Wetstein.

Romans 3:15-17 are from Isaiah 59:7-8, quoted freely and with abbreviations from the LXX.

ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ὉΔΟῖς ΑὐΤῶΝ] Where they go, is desolation (fragments שֹׁד) and misery, which they produce.

ὁδὸν εἰρ. οὐκ ἔγν.] i.e. a way on which one walks peacefully (the opposite of the ὁδοί, on which is σύντριμμα κ. ταλαιπ.), they have not known (2 Corinthians 5:21), it has remained strange to them.

Romans 3:18 is from Psalm 36:1. The fear of God, which would have preserved them from such conduct and have led them to an entirely different course, is not before their eyes. “There is objectivity ascribed to a condition which is, psychologically, subjective.” Morison.

[776] According to Hofmann the first and second parts consist each of seven propositions. Thus even the conclusion of ver. 12, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός, is to be reckoned as a separate proposition! How all the parallelism of Hebrew poetry is mutilated by such artifices!

[777] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[778] t al. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[779] The MSS. of the LXX. which read the whole passage vv. 13–18 at Psalm 14:3, have been interpolated from our passage in Christian times. See Wolf, Cur. on ver. 10.

[781] The metaphorical representation in classical passages, in which, e.g., the Cyclops is termed ζῶν τύμβος (Anth. Pal. xiv. 109, 3), or the vultures ἔμψυχοι τάφοι (Gorgias, ap. Longin. 3), is not similar.