KJV: But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
YLT: And, if our unrighteousness God's righteousness doth establish, what shall we say? is God unrighteous who is inflicting the wrath? (after the manner of a man I speak)
Darby: But if our unrighteousness commend God's righteousness, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath? I speak according to man.
ASV: But if our righteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.)
| δὲ | however |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: δέ Sense: but, moreover, and, etc. |
|
| ἀδικία | unrighteousness |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: ἀδικία Sense: injustice, of a judge. |
|
| ἡμῶν | of us |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive 1st Person Plural Root: ἐγώ Sense: I, me, my. |
|
| Θεοῦ | God’s |
|
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Singular Root: θεός Sense: a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. |
|
| δικαιοσύνην | righteousness |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: δικαιοσύνη Sense: in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God. |
|
| συνίστησιν | shows |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: συνιστάω Sense: to place together, to set in the same place,to bring or band together. |
|
| ἐροῦμεν | shall we say |
|
Parse: Verb, Future Indicative Active, 1st Person Plural Root: λέγω Sense: to utter, speak, say. |
|
| ἄδικος | unrighteous |
|
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ἄδικος Sense: descriptive of one who violates or has violated justice. |
|
| ὁ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| Θεὸς | God |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: θεός Sense: a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. |
|
| ἐπιφέρων | inflicting |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Participle Active, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ἐπιφέρω Sense: to bring upon, bring forward. |
|
| ὀργήν | wrath |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: ὀργή Sense: anger, the natural disposition, temper, character. |
|
| κατὰ | According to |
|
Parse: Preposition Root: κατά Sense: down from, through out. |
|
| ἄνθρωπον | man |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular Root: ἄνθρωπος Sense: a human being, whether male or female. |
|
| λέγω | I speak |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 1st Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to say, to speak. |
|
Greek Commentary for Romans 3:5
Rhetorical question, common with Paul as he surveys the argument. [source]
This common verb συνιστημι sunistēmi to send together, occurs in the N.T. in two senses, either to introduce, to commend (2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 4:2) or to prove, to establish (2 Corinthians 7:11; Galatians 2:18; Romans 5:8). Either makes good sense here. Who visiteth the wrath (ο επιπερων την οργην ho epipherōn tēn orgēn). “Who brings on the wrath,” “the inflicter of the anger” (Vaughan). I speak as a man See note on Galatians 3:15 for same phrase. As if to say, “pardon me for this line of argument.” Tholuck says that the rabbis often used κατα αντρωπον kata anthrōpon and τι ερουμεν ti eroumen Paul had not forgotten his rabbinical training. [source]
“Who brings on the wrath,” “the inflicter of the anger” (Vaughan). [source]
See note on Galatians 3:15 for same phrase. As if to say, “pardon me for this line of argument.” Tholuck says that the rabbis often used κατα αντρωπον kata anthrōpon and τι ερουμεν ti eroumen Paul had not forgotten his rabbinical training. [source]
Only twice outside of Paul's writings, Luke 9:32; 2 Peter 3:5, both in the physical sense. Lit., to place together. Hence of setting one person with another by way of introducing or presenting him, and hence to commend. Also to put together with a vein of showing, proving, or establishing. Expositors render here differently: commend, establish, prove. Commend is the prevailing sense in the New Testament, though in some instances the two ideas blend, as Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Galatians 2:18. See Romans 16:1; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 10:18. [source]
Rev., much better, who visiteth with wrath. Lit., bringeth the anger to bear. The force of the article it is difficult to render. It may be the wrath, definitely conceived as judicial, or, more probably, as in Matthew 3:7, referring to something recognized - the wrath to come, the well-understood need of unrighteousness. See on Romans 12:19. [source]
Rev., after the manner of men; i.e., I use a mode of speech drawn from human affairs. The phrase is thrown in apologetically, under a sense that the mode of speech is unworthy of the subject. Morison aptly paraphrases: “When I ask the question, 'Is God unjust who inflicteth wrath?' I am deeply conscious that I am using language which is intrinsically improper when applied to God. But in condescension to human weakness I transfer to Him language which it is customary for men to employ when referring to human relationships.” Compare 1 Corinthians 9:8; Romans 6:19. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Romans 3:5
Both ὀργὴ and θυμός are used in the New Testament for wrath or anger, and without any commonly observed distinction. Ὁργη denotes a deeper and more permanent sentiment; a settled habit of mind; while θυμός is a more turbulent, but temporary agitation. Both words are used in the phrase wrath of God, which commonly denotes a distinct manifestation of God's judgment (Romans 1:18; Romans 3:5; Romans 9:22; Romans 12:19). Ὁργὴ (not θυμός ) also appears in the phrase the wrath to come (Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:16, etc.). Compare wrath of the Lamb (Revelation 6:16). [source]
See on Romans 3:5. Note the present tense. God continuously establishes His love in that the death of Christ remains as its most striking manifestation. [source]
See on Romans 3:5. [source]
Rev., more correctly, therein is revealed a righteousness of God. The absence of the article denotes that a peculiar kind of righteousness is meant. This statement contains the subject of the epistle: Righteousness is by faith. The subject is not stated formally nor independently, but as a proof that the Gospel is a power, etc. This word δικαιοσύνη righteousnessand its kindred words δίκαιος righteousand δικαιόω tomake righteous, play so important a part in this epistle that it is desirable to fix their meaning as accurately as possible. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Classical Usage. In the Greek classics there appears an eternal, divine, unwritten principle of right, dwelling in the human consciousness, shaping both the physical and the moral ordering of the world, and personified as Themis ( Θέμις ). This word is used as a common noun in the phrase θέμις ἐστὶ itis right (fundamentally and eternally), like the Latin fas est. Thus Homer, of Penelope mourning for Ulysses, θέμις ἐστὶ γυναικός itis the sacred obligation of the wife (founded in her natural relation to her husband, ordained of heaven) to mourn (“Odyssey,” 14,130). So Antigone appeals to the unwritten law against the barbarity of refusing burial to her brother.“Nor did I deem thy edicts strong enough,That thou, a mortal man, shouldst overpass The unwritten laws of God that know not change.”Sophocles, “Antigone,” 453-455.See, also, “Odyssey,” 14,91; Aristophanes, “Clouds,” 140; “Antigone,” 880. This divine ordering requires that men should be shown or pointed to that which is according to it - a definite circle of duties and obligations which constitute right ( δίκη ). Thus what is δίκαιος righteousis properly the expression of the eternal Themis. While δίκη and θέμις are not to be distinguished as human and divine, δίκη has a more distinctively human, personal character, and comes into sharper definition. It introduces the distinction between absolute right and power. It imposes the recognition of a moral principle over against an absolutely constraining natural force. The conception of δίκη is strongly moral. Δίκαιος is right; δικαιοσύνη is rightness as characterizing the entire being of man. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- There is a religious background to the pagan conception. In the Homeric poems morality stands in a relation, loose and undeveloped indeed, but none the less real, to religion. This appears in the use of the oath in compacts; in the fear of the wrath of heaven for omission of sacrifices; in regarding refusal of hospitality as an offense against Zeus, the patron of strangers and suppliants. Certain tribes which are fierce and uncivilized are nevertheless described as δίκαιοι righteous“The characteristic stand-point of the Homeric ethics is that the spheres of law, of morals, and of religion are by no means separate, but lie side by side in undeveloped unity.” (Nagelsbach). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In later Greek literature this conception advances, in some instances, far toward the christian ideal; as in the fourth book of Plato's “Laws,” where he asserts that God holds in His hand the beginning, middle, and end of all things; that justice always follows Him, and punishes those who fall short of His laws. Those who would be dear to God must be like Him. Without holiness no man is accepted of God. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Nevertheless, however clearly the religious background and sanction of morality may be recognized, it is apparent that the basis of right is found, very largely, in established social usage. The word ethics points first to what is established by custom. While with Mr. Grote we must admit the peculiar emphasis on the individual in the Homeric poems, we cannot help observing a certain influence of social sentiment on morals. While there are cases like the suitors, Paris and Helen, where public opinion imposes no moral check, there are others where the force of public opinion is clearly visible, such as Penelope and Nausicaa. The Homeric view of homicide reveals no relation between moral sentiment and divine enactment. Murder is a breach of social law, a private and civil wrong, entailing no loss of character. Its penalty is a satisfaction to the feelings of friends, or a compensation for lost services. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Later, we find this social aspect of morality even more strongly emphasized. “The city becomes the central and paramount source of obligation. The great, impersonal authority called 'the Laws' stands out separately, both as guide and sanction, distinct from religious duty or private sympathy” (Grote). Socrates is charged with impiety because he does not believe in the gods of the state, and Socrates himself agrees that that man does right who obeys what the citizens have agreed should be done, and who refrains from what they forbid. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The social basis of righteousness also appears in the frequent contrast between δίκη and βία , right and force. A violation of right is that which forces its way over the social sanction. The social conception of δίκαιος is not lost, even when the idea is so apprehended as to border on the christian love of one's neighbor. There is a wrong toward the gods, but every wrong is not in itself such. The inner, personal relation to deity, the absolute and constraining appeal of divine character and law to conscience, the view of duty as one's right, and of personal right as something to be surrendered to the paramount claim of love - all these elements which distinguish the christian conception of righteousness - are thus in sharp contrast with a righteousness dictated by social claims which limit the individual desire or preference, but which leave untouched the tenacity of personal right, and place obligation behind legitimacy. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- It is desirable that the classical usage of these terms should be understood, in order to throw into sharper relief the Biblical usage, according to which God is the absolute and final standard of right, and every wrong is a sin against God (Psalm 51:4). Each man stands in direct and primary relation to the holy God as He is by the law of His own nature. Righteousness is union with God in character. To the Greek mind of the legendary age such a conception is both strange and essentially impossible, since the Greek divinity is only the Greek man exaggerated in his virtues and vices alike. According to the christian ideal, righteousness is character, and the norm of character is likeness to God. This idea includes all the social aspects of right. Love and duty toward God involve love and duty to the neighbor. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Here must be noted a peculiar usage of δίκαιος righteousand δικαιοσύνη righteousnessin the Septuagint. They are at times interchanged with ἐλεημοσύνη mercyand ἔλεος kindnessThe Hebrew chesed kindness, though usually rendered by ἔλεος , is nine times translated by δικαιοσύνη righteousnessand once by δίκαιος righteousThe Hebrew tsedakah usually rendered by δικαιοσύνη , is nine times translated by ἐλεημοσύνη mercyand three times by ἔλεος kindnessCompare the Heb. and Sept. at Deuteronomy 6:25; Deuteronomy 24:13(15); Genesis 19:19; Genesis 24:27. This usage throws light on the reading δικαιοσύνην , Rev., righteousness (kindness? ), instead of ἐλεημοσύνην mercyA.V., alms, Matthew 6:1. Mr. Hatch (“Essays in Biblical Greek”) says that the meaning kindness is so clear in this passage that scribes, who were unaware of its existence, altered the text. He also thinks that this meaning gives a better sense than any other to Matthew 1:19“Joseph, being a kindly ( δίκαιος , A.V., just ) man.”-DIVIDER- 1. In the New Testament δίκαιος is used both of God and of Christ. Of God, 1 John 1:9; John 17:25; Revelation 16:5; Romans 3:26. Of Christ, 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:7; Acts 3:14; Acts 7:52; Acts 22:14. In these passages the word characterizes God and Christ either in their essential quality or in their action; either as righteous according to the eternal norm of divine holiness (John 17:25; 1 John 3:7; Romans 3:26), or as holiness passes into righteous dealing with men (1 John 1:9). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 2. Δίκαιος is used of men, denoting their normal relation to the will and judgment of God. Hence it means virtuous, upright, pure in life, correct in thinking and feeling. It stands opposed to ἀνομία lawlessness ἁμαρτία sin ἀκαθαρσία impuritya contrast wanting in classical usage, where the conception of sin is vague. See Romans 6:13, Romans 6:16, Romans 6:18, Romans 6:20; Romans 8:10; 2 Corinthians 6:7, 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 5:9; Ephesians 6:14; Philemon 1:11; James 3:18. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Where δικαιοσύνη righteousnessis joined with ὁσιότης holiness(Luke 1:75; Ephesians 4:24), it denotes right conduct toward men, as holiness denotes piety toward God. It appears in the wider sense of answering to the demands of God in general, Matthew 13:17; Matthew 10:41; Matthew 23:29; Acts 10:22, Acts 10:35; and in the narrower sense of perfectly answering the divine demands, guiltless. So of Christ, Acts 3:14; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:1. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- 3. It is found in the classical sense of it is right, Philemon 1:7, or that which is right, Colossians 4:1. This, however, is included within the Christian conception. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Δικαιοσύνη righteousnessis therefore that which fulfills the claims of δίκη right“It is the state commanded by God and standing the test of His judgment; the character and acts of a man approved of Him, in virtue of which the man corresponds with Him and His will as His ideal and standard” (Cremer). -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The medium of this righteousness is faith. Faith is said to be counted or reckoned for righteousness; i.e., righteousness is ascribed to it or recognized in it. Romans 4:3, Romans 4:6, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:22; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- In this verse the righteousness revealed in the Gospel is described as a righteousness of God. This does not mean righteousness as an attribute of God, as in Romans 3:5; but righteousness as bestowed on man by God. The state of the justified man is due to God. The righteousness which becomes his is that which God declares to be righteousness and ascribes to him. Righteousness thus expresses the relation of being right into which God puts the man who believes. See further, on justified, Romans 2:13.Is revealed ( ἀποκαλύπτεται )Emphasizing the peculiar sense in which “righteousness” is used here. Righteousness as an attribute of God was revealed before the Gospel. Righteousness in this sense is a matter of special revelation through the Gospel. The present tense describes the Gospel in its continuous proclamation: is being revealed.From faith to faith ( ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν )Rev., by faith unto faith. According to the A.V. the idea is that of progress in faith itself; either from Old to New Testament faith, or, in the individual, from a lower to a higher degree of faith; and this idea, I think, must be held here, although it is true that it is introduced secondarily, since Paul is dealing principally with the truth that righteousness is by faith. We may rightly say that the revealed righteousness of God is unto faith, in the sense of with a view to produce faith; but we may also say that faith is a progressive principle; that the aim of God's justifying righteousness is life, and that the just lives by his faith (Galatians 2:20), and enters into “more abundant” life with the development of his faith. Compare 2 Corinthians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 6:19; and the phrase, justification of life, Romans 5:18.sa40 [source]
The regular word for letters of commendation as in 2 Corinthians 3:1 See also Romans 3:5. So here Romans 16:1, Romans 16:2 constitute Paul‘s recommendation of Phoebe, the bearer of the Epistle. Nothing else is known of her, though her name (Ποιβη Phoibē) means bright or radiant. [source]
] Old word from πσευδομαι pseudomai to lie, only here in N.T. Paul returns to the imaginary objection in Romans 3:5. The MSS. differ sharply here between ει δε ei de (but if) and ει γαρ ei gar (for if). Paul “uses the first person from motives of delicacy” (Sanday and Headlam) in this supposable case for argument‘s sake as in 1 Corinthians 4:6. So here he “transfers by a fiction” (Field) to himself the objection. [source]
“I speak a human word.” He begs pardon for using “slaving” in connection with righteousness. But it is a good word, especially for our times when self-assertiveness and personal liberty bulk so large in modern speech. See note on Romans 3:5; Galatians 3:15 where he uses κατα αντρωπον kata anthrōpon [source]
Rev., after the manner of men. See on Romans 3:5. The formula occurs six times in Paul's epistles. The question introduces another kind of evidence - that from Scripture. I will not confine myself to illustrations from human affairs. I will appeal to Scripture. [source]
Negative answer expected. Paul uses κατα αντρωπον kata anthrōpon six times (1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Corinthians 9:8; 1 Corinthians 15:32; Galatians 1:11; Galatians 3:15; Romans 3:5). The illustrations from human life are pertinent, but he has some of a higher order, from Scripture. [source]
See on Romans 3:5. Some others. Others is superfluous. The reference is to certain false teachers accredited by churches or by other well-known teachers. [source]
According to human analogy; reasoning as men would reason in ordinary affairs. The phrase is peculiar to Paul. See Romans 3:5; 1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Corinthians 9:8; 1 Corinthians 15:32; Galatians 1:11. Comp. ἀνθρώπινος asa man, Romans 6:19. [source]
Better, prove myself. The verb originally means to put together: thence to put one person in contact with another by way of introducing him and bespeaking for him confidence and approval. To commend, as Romans 16:1; comp. Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 5:12. As proof, or exhibition of the true state of a case is furnished by putting things together, the word comes to mean demonstrate, exhibit the fact, as here, Romans 3:5; 2 Corinthians 6:11. [source]
According to any human standard. The phrase only in Paul. See Romans 3:5; 1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Corinthians 9:8; 1 Corinthians 15:32. Κατὰ ἀνθρώπους accordingto men, 1 Peter 4:6. [source]
Cohere, in mutual dependence. Compare Acts 27:28; Hebrews 1:3. For other meanings of the verb, see on Romans 3:5. Christ not only creates, but maintains in continuous stability and productiveness. “He, the All-powerful, All-holy Word of the Father, spreads His power over all things everywhere, enlightening things seen and unseen, holding and binding all together in Himself. Nothing is left empty of His presence, but to all things and through all, severally and collectively, He is the giver and sustainer of life … . He, the Wisdom of God, holds the universe in tune together. He it is who, binding all with each, and ordering all things by His will and pleasure, produces the perfect unity of nature and the harmonious reign of law. While He abides unmoved forever with the Father, He yet moves all things by His own appointment according to the Father's will” (Athanasius). [source]
Paul gloried in the fact of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead of which fact he was himself a personal witness. This fact is the foundation stone for all his theology and it comes out in this first chapter. Jesus which delivereth us from the wrath to come (Ιησουν τον ρυομενον ημας εκ της οργης της ερχομενης Iēsoun ton ruomenon hēmās ek tēs orgēs tēs erchomenēs). It is the historic, crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus Christ, God‘s Son, who delivers from the coming wrath. He is our Saviour (Matthew 1:21) true to his name Jesus. He is our Rescuer (Romans 11:26, ο ρυομενος ho ruomenos from Isaiah 59:20). It is eschatological language, this coming wrath of God for sin (1 Thessalonians 2:16; Romans 3:5; Romans 5:9; Romans 9:22; Romans 13:5). It was Paul‘s allusion to the day of judgment with Jesus as Judge whom God had raised from the dead that made the Athenians mock and leave him (Acts 17:31.). But Paul did not change his belief or his preaching because of the conduct of the Athenians. He is certain that God‘s wrath in due time will punish sin. Surely this is a needed lesson for our day. It was coming then and it is coming now. [source]
It is the historic, crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus Christ, God‘s Son, who delivers from the coming wrath. He is our Saviour (Matthew 1:21) true to his name Jesus. He is our Rescuer (Romans 11:26, ο ρυομενος ho ruomenos from Isaiah 59:20). It is eschatological language, this coming wrath of God for sin (1 Thessalonians 2:16; Romans 3:5; Romans 5:9; Romans 9:22; Romans 13:5). It was Paul‘s allusion to the day of judgment with Jesus as Judge whom God had raised from the dead that made the Athenians mock and leave him (Acts 17:31.). But Paul did not change his belief or his preaching because of the conduct of the Athenians. He is certain that God‘s wrath in due time will punish sin. Surely this is a needed lesson for our day. It was coming then and it is coming now. [source]