Lessons #89 and 90
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New American Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
+ 4. Text is based on 1984 edition of the NIV +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judging God not unjust (Rom 3:5-8)
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say — “Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.
The preceding section of Romans 3:1-4 was concerned with advantages of Jews – one clearly given, that is, God’s promises and by implication recipients of the OT Scripture, and the other implied, which is being the beneficiaries of God’s faithfulness. There is a sense Apostle Paul’s discourse that involved explaining the true Jew that began in Romans 2:17 and ended in Romans 3:4 is a digression to his major theme of God’s response to unrighteousness the apostle discoursed beginning in verse 18 of the first chapter and ended in verse 20 of the third chapter. God’s response to unrighteousness is that of judgment on sin and so on sinners. It is after the apostle finished developing his point that God’s judgment is independent of the law he discoursed in Romans 2:1-16 that he digressed to deal with question of who a true Jew is in Romans 2:17 to Romans 3:4. Although the digression to deal with who a true Jew is, shows that sin cannot change God’s unconditional promise, the fact remains that the major concern of the apostle is God’s judgment on sin. Consequently, it is not surprising that after dealing with subject of the true Jew, the apostle returned to the subject of God’s judgment beginning in verse 5 of the third chapter of Romans. As we indicated in the introduction of this epistle, the apostle returned to God’s judgment on humanity’s sinfulness in Romans 3:5-20. Of course, he first established that God’s judgment on people’s sinfulness confirms His righteous character in Romans 3:5-8 before he proceeded to discourse on His judgment on humanity’s sinfulness in Romans 3:9-20. Anyway, it is because the apostle returned to his major concern of God’s response to unrighteousness in the form of judgment resulting in punishment for sin that we suggest the discourse on the Jews the apostle began in Romans 2:17 and ended in Romans 3:4 could be considered a digression.
All the same, the section before us is concerned with God’s judgment or punishment that confirms His righteous character. The apostle used five rhetorical questions in the passage we are studying that helped us to consider it as being concerned with understanding that God who judges sin could not be considered anything but just. Thus, there are assertions that the rhetorical questions of the apostle in the section we are considering help us to make. The first is that human unrighteousness proves God’s righteousness as derived from verse 5. The second is that His judgment of the world proves He is not unjust as conveyed in verse 6. The third is that even misrepresentation of Paul’s teaching proves God is just as we derive from verses 7 and 8. Because this section is concerned with teaching that God is not unjust since He judges sin, we derive a message we believe the Holy Spirit wants us to hear from the passage before us. This message is that God is just in His punishing of human sinfulness and so, you should avoid His punishment by avoiding sinfulness.
In any case, it is our interpretation that the passage we are about to consider resumes the theme of God’s judgment or punishment of sin after the apostle’s digression to discourse on who a true Jew is and consequently the two advantages of the Jews as we have interpreted previously. The progression of the apostle’s teaching supports our interpretation. However, there is another support for our interpretation. It is that the apostle used in Romans 3:5 a Greek particle (de) as the second word in the Greek of our verse because of a Greek rule that it never begins a Greek sentence. The Greek particle is routinely translated “but” in our English versions, as done in our verse in majority of our English versions, to reflect a contrast between clauses. When a simple connective is desired, without a contrast being clearly implied, it may be translated “and” or “now” and in certain occurrences the particle may be left untranslated. Other times, the particle is used to provide explanation so may be translated “that is.” In the verse we are considering, although as we have already stated that majority of our English versions used the meaning “but”, the apostle probably used it in two related ways. The particle is used to resume the discourse on God’s judgment and or punishment that the apostle stopped in Romans 2:16 to digress to a discourse of who a true Jew is and so it may be left untranslated or translated “now.” It is probably this interpretation that is reflected in the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) that begins Romans 3:5 with the word “now.” It is also possible that this is the interpretation adopted by such English versions as the CEV, the NCV, and the REB since their translators did not translate it. I say that it is possible that this interpretation is adopted by the translators of these English versions since their approach could also apply to another possible interpretation of the Greek particle we are considering. Another possible interpretation of the Greek particle in our verse is that it is used as a marker of a transition to something new, in which case it may be translated “now” or left untranslated. This interpretation makes sense if we recall what we stated was the apostle’s reason for quoting Psalm 51:4 as it appears in the Septuagint, which is to support his issue about God’s faithfulness that is behind what He did for Israel that may be objectionable to one that does not understand that human unfaithfulness or unbelief would not alter God’s faithfulness. However, in the passage we are considering the apostle focused on God’s righteousness and or justice so that we can say that he transitioned to another aspect of God’s character. It is probably that the two interpretations are meant in our passage. In effect, the apostle used our Greek particle to resume the topic of judgment or punishment that he paused to deal with what define a true Jew but then he did so by transitioning to a new aspect of God’s character that is concerned with righteousness and or justice.
Be that as it may, we indicated that the first point the apostle conveyed in the section we are considering is that human unrighteousness proves God’s righteousness. This point we said is derived from verse 5. This is in part because the apostle begins his first rhetorical question with a conditional clause if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly.
The word “if” is translated from a Greek particle (ei) that is used in different ways in the Greek. For example, the Greek particle is used as a marker of condition that exists in fact or hypothetical so that it is translated “if.” On the one hand, if a writer presents an action associated with a verb as real, although the writer may or may not believe the action to be real, there is the implication there is no doubt or uncertainty about what is stated when our Greek particle is used. Thus, in some context, the word “if” may be understood to mean “since”, especially if the action has already taken place as in the instruction of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul regarding the conduct expected of those who have believed in Christ as stated in Colossians 3:1:
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.
The clause Since, then, you have been raised with Christ is literally Therefore, if you have been raised together with Christ. The apostle did not state something that is conditional as the literal translation would imply. No! He stated truth that applies to anyone who is a believer in Christ in that the person has been raised with Christ as he stated in Ephesians 2:6:
And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.
Hence, it is fitting for the word “if” used in Colossians 3:1 to be understood as “since” as believers, by virtue of their salvation, have been raised with Christ. On the other hand, if a writer presents the action associated with a verb as possible, the implication is that the thing in question is possible but uncertain, though assumed probable. Thus, it is used to narrate what Apostle Paul said before Governor Felix in his defense in which he indicated that if the Jews had a case to charge him with, they should have been before the governor to present his charge as stated in Acts 24:19:
But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me.
The clause if they have anything against me may, according to the standard Greek English lexicon (BDAG), be translated if they should have any charges to bring against me, implying something possible but uncertain. In our passage of Romans 3:5, because the apostle used it to state something that is true, the particle is best translated “since” to indicate that the apostle was not concerned with something that is uncertain, but what is certain. None of the English versions that I consulted used the word “since” in their translation of the clause we are considering but the NCV translated the particle with “when” so that verse 5 in it begins as “When we do wrong.” This clause asserts what is true and so agrees with our interpretation. Likewise, although the translators of the New International Reader’s Version (NIrV) did not translate our Greek particle, but their translation reflects the interpretation we have given since verse 5 in this version reads Doesn’t the fact that we are wrong prove more clearly that God is right? Anyway, our interpretation is that the conditional clause should be translated in a way that indicates the apostle stated what is true and not something uncertain. We are saying that the clause if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly should read since our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly.
The conditional clause that introduced the apostle’s first rhetorical question of Romans 3:5 as we stated is if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly. The word “unrighteousness” is translated from a Greek noun (adikia) that may mean “an act that violates standards of right conduct,” that is, “wrong, wrongdoing” as the apostle used it sarcastically with the Corinthians for them not supporting him when he preached the gospel and taught Christian doctrines among them as stated in 2 Corinthians 12:13:
How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!
The word may mean “harm” as it is used by Apostle Peter to, in effect, apply the spiritual law of sowing and reaping to false teachers as we read in 2 Peter 2:13:
They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
The word may mean “unrighteousness” as that which the believer is cleansed from upon confession of sin as we read in 1 John 1:9:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word has the sense of “unrighteousness,” that is, “failure to adhere to moral principles, commands, or laws.” Of course, it is also possible for the word to have the sense of “injustice” as reflected in the NRSV or the NJB. That aside, the apostle’s concern is indeed the general sinfulness of humans although there are those who interpret it as a reference to the unfaithfulness of the Jews.
The expression “brings out” in the clause of Romans 3:5 is if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly is translated from a Greek verb (synistēmi) that may mean “to provide evidence of a personal characteristic or claim through action, that is, “to demonstrate, prove, show, bring out” as it is used to state how God proves or shows His love for us in Romans 5:8:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
The word may mean “to commend” as Apostle Paul used it to describe to the Corinthians the kind of person God approves in 2 Corinthians 10:18:
For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.
The word may mean “to hold together,” that is, “to unite parts into one whole,” as it is used to describe function associated with Jesus Christ as the creator of the world as stated in Colossians 1:17:
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word means “to demonstrate,” that is, “to provide evidence for; stand as proof of.” The evidence provided concerns the phrase of Romans 3:5 God’s righteousness.
The word “righteousness” is translated from a Greek noun (dikaiosynē) that may mean “righteousness” in the sense of doing what God requires or doing what is right, as the word is used to describe those who are persecuted, to whom belongs God’s kingdom in Matthew 5:10:
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
It is also in the sense of doing what God requires that our Greek word is used to attribute righteousness to Abraham when he believed Yahweh’s promise, as stated in Romans 4:3:
What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Righteousness here is a blessing conferred to Abraham in the sense that God considered him as doing what He wanted since he believed in Him. What God requires should not be thought only in terms of moral actions, but what is in accordance with His plan. This point is important since there is no morality involved in the use of our Greek word when it is used in the mouth of the Lord Jesus during His water baptism, but it is simply used in the sense of “conforming to God’s plan, what He has decided, what is pleasing to Him” in the Lord Jesus’ reply to John who was hesitant to baptize Him, as we read in Matthew 3:15:
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Our Greek word may refer to the practices required by religion such as charitable giving so that it has the meaning of “religious observances,” as in Matthew 6:1:
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
The phrase acts of righteousness may be translated “religious observances.” Our Greek word may refer to the quality, state, or practice of judicial responsibility with focus on fairness hence means “justice, equitableness, fairness.” Thus, it is used to describe the manner of God’s future judgment in Acts 17:31:
For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
It is in this sense of fairness or justice that our Greek word is used regarding the right practicing of judicial responsibility of believing rulers as it is used in Hebrews 11:33:
who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions,
The word may refer to quality or state of juridical correctness with focus on redemptive action and so means “righteousness.” It is used to describe the executive privilege that belongs to God in conferring a benefit. For example, the offering of Jesus Christ on the cross is described as a demonstration of righteousness on the part of God in Romans 3:25:
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
The 1984 edition of the NIV translated our Greek word with “justice” in this passage, but the 2011 edition used the meaning “righteousness” that is found in majority of our English versions. Each of these meanings could be justified in this passage, but it is probably the meaning of “righteousness” that is intended since the passage is concerned with how God puts persons right with Himself. Our Greek word may mean “being put in right relationship with God”, as that is the sense of the word in Romans 5:17:
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
The phrase the gift of righteousness may be understood either as the gift that comes from God because He is righteous or the gift of being put into a right relation with God. Though it is difficult to separate these two interpretations, but it is probably the second interpretation that is intended so that our Greek word is given the meaning of “being put into right relation with God.” Our Greek word in some contexts may approach the meaning of “salvation.” This we can see from its use in the Septuagint of Isaiah 51:5:
My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations. The islands will look to me and wait in hope for my arm.
Here Yahweh’s righteousness is near, so is salvation; hence, there is a parallel between the two that we can say that “righteousness” in certain context refers to “salvation.” In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word means “justice,” that is, “the quality of being free from favoritism, self-interest, bias, or deception.” Since our word is associated with God in the phrase of Romans 3:5 brings out God’s righteousness, it is God’s attribute of justice that is the focus of the apostle in our passage.
The condition the apostle stated in Romans 3:5 if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly as we stated is indeed true. How does our unrighteousness demonstrate God’s justice or righteousness? The fact that we humans are unrighteous or show injustice proves the point that God is righteous or just as the absolute standard of justice or righteousness. His justice or righteousness is further demonstrated in His judging of sin. You see, God is our creator so that the fact we fell from the state we were created by Him proves that He is righteous and just. Because we are unrighteous and God is righteous and just, implying He judges or punishes sins led to the first question of the apostle in Romans 3:5 what shall we say? The pronoun “we” refers to Apostle Paul although some take it as a reference to objectors of Paul’s teachings. It is probably better to understand the pronoun as referring to the apostle since he realized that his teachings and even questions would lead to wrong conclusions and so he set out to prevent such in the question what shall we say?
The word “say” is translated from a Greek verb (eipon) that may mean “to answer, reply” to a question as the word is used in the reply of the disciples to the question of the Lord Jesus regarding who people think He is as narrated in Matthew 16:14:
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
The word may mean “to say, tell” as Apostle Paul used it to rebuke the Corinthians for their failure during their fellowship meal that preceded the Lord’s Supper as recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:22:
Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word has the meaning of “to conclude,” that is, “to reach a conclusion by reasoning.” Hence, the apostle asks the question in Romans 3:5 what shall we say?
regarding what can be concluded because humans are unrighteous and God is righteous and just. The thing that the apostle questions if we can conclude is given in the second rhetorical question of the apostle.
The second rhetorical question is given in the next question of Romans 3:5 That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? The Greek does not have the word “that” or “is” or “us” of the NIV, but they are added by its translators to make sense of the Greek. For literally, the Greek reads God, the (one) inflicting the wrath, (is) not unjust (is he)? It is because of the literal Greek that we used the phrase “the judging God” in the title “The Judging God not unjust” we assigned to Romans 3:5-8. You see, the Greek used a participle that describes God as we will demonstrate shortly as we consider the words used by the apostle in the rhetorical question.
The verbal phrase in bringing of the NIV is translated from a participle of a Greek verb (epipherō) that may mean “bring something over and put it on someone,” that is, “take to” as it is used to describe placing of Paul’s handkerchief on the sick for healing as narrated in Acts 19:12:
so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
The word may mean “to bring” especially of bringing charges or making accusations as the word is used by Jude to indicate that the archangel Michael did not bring accusation against the devil with respect to the body of Moses as we read in Jude 9:
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word means “to inflict,” that is, “bring down or impose an unpleasant state or condition on someone.” The apostle used a present participle in the Greek so that the participle serves to describe God as the One who inflicts what is described in the passage we are considering. The present tense the apostle used does not mean that God continues to inflict something but that He does that whenever the circumstance calls for Him to do so.
The thing that we can be certain God inflicts is described in the phrase of Romans 3:5 his wrath. The word “wrath” is translated from a Greek noun (orgē) translated “anger” in the sense of intense feeling of displeasure with focus on emotional aspect as it is used to describe human anger in Ephesians 4:31:
Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
However, the word also means “wrath” in the sense of strong indignation directed at wrongdoing, with focus on retribution. Thus, when the word is used of God, it can refer to His indignation as it is used to describe the state of an unbeliever in relation to God in John 3:36:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
The sentence God’s wrath remains on him may be translated the indignation of God remains on him. The word in connection with God is used to describe the result of wrath, that is, punishment of sin, as in Romans 4:15:
because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Here in Romans 4:15 “wrath” has the sense of “punishment” as reflected in the NLT or “retribution” as in the REB. The word can mean “judgment” in connection with God. It is in this sense that the Greek word is used in describing God’s future judgment in 1 Thessalonians 1:10:
and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
The word “wrath” here has the sense of “judgment” although this meaning of judgment is not sufficient to convey its meaning with respect to God since the word also is concerned with God’s reaction towards sin. It is probably for this reason that the translators of the NEB used the phrase terrors of judgment in their translation of 1 Thessalonians 1:10. In effect, the meaning “wrath” with respect to God does not refer simply to God’s feelings with respect to sin but also to His action in judging and punishing humans for their sins. Thus, in some context, the word means “punitive judgment.” It is in this sense that the word is used for God’s future punitive judgment in 1 Thessalonians 5:9:
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The standard Greek English lexicon of BDAG suggests that the sentence God did not appoint us to suffer wrath could be translated God has not destined us for punitive judgment; in this way, it is clearer that our Greek word has the meaning of punitive judgment. In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word is used with the meaning “wrath or punishment,” that is, “the punitive outworking of God’s righteous indignation at sin.” Anyhow, the apostle described God as the judge who inflicts His wrath or punishment on those who sin against Him.
It is because God inflicts punishment on those who sin that the apostle questions whether it is appropriate to conclude that God is unjust as in the question of Romans 3:5 That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? The word “unjust” is translated from a Greek word (adikos) that may mean “unrighteous, sinful,” that is, pertaining to acting in a way that is contrary to what is right as the word is used for those reserved for day of judgment in 2 Peter 2:9:
if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
The word may mean “unjust,” that is, pertaining to being associated with injustice as it is used by the human author of Hebrews to describe what God is not in Hebrews 6:10:
God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.
In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word means “unjust,” that is, “marked by injustice or unfairness.” Of course, the word may also mean “unrighteous” as reflected in some of our English versions since being unjust is an expression of unrighteousness. That aside, the rhetorical question of the apostle in the passage we are considering demands the answer that God is not unjust as implied in what the apostle stated in the next verse that we will get to shortly. The expected answer to the question regarding whether God is unjust for inflicting punishment leads to what we stated as the first point the apostle wanted to communicate in this section. This point, as we have stated previously, is that human unrighteousness proves God’s righteousness or His justice since inflicting punishment reflects the fact God does not tolerate sin and if He does not tolerate sin, we can only conclude that He is righteous and just. This first point is indeed related to the second point that we will get to shortly.
The apostle before answering the second rhetorical question and before stating the third, made a comment regarding the argument he is using although through rhetorical questions. His comment is simply that he was using human arguments as he stated in the sentence of Romans 3:5 I am using a human argument. Literally, the Greek reads I speak according to man. This is because of the Greek words used. The apostle used a Greek verb (legō) that may mean “to express oneself orally or in written form” and so may mean to “tell” as Apostle Paul used it to communicate to the Thessalonians regarding the implied order of resurrection of believers in Christ as stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:15:
According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
The word may mean “to inform about/tell of something so that it may mean “to mention” as Apostle Paul used it to assert regarding the nature of things unbelievers do in secret as recorded in Ephesians 5:12:
For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.
The word may mean “to express oneself in a specific way” and so, for example, it may mean “to declare as in what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman in His interaction with her as recorded in John 4:21:
Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
In our passage of Romans 3:5 the word is used with the sense of “to say,” that is, “to state as one’s opinion or judgment” or “to declare.”
The apostle qualified or stated the manner of his speaking in the literal phrase of Romans 3:5 according to man. The word “according” is translated from a Greek preposition (kata) with several usages. For example, it may be used as a marker of opposition so that it may be translated “against.” It may be used as a marker to introduce the norm which governs something and so may mean “in accordance with” but it can also mean “because of, as a result of, on the basis of.” In our passage of Romans 3:5 the word means “after the manner of” or simply “as.” The preposition is associated with a Greek noun (anthrōpos) that means “a human being” without regard to gender, as Apostle Paul used it to describe the fate of evil doers as stated in Romans 2:9:
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
The word may mean “man” as male person as the apostle used it to describe Jesus Christ in His humanity in Romans 5:15:
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
The word may mean “self” as it is used in the instruction of Romans 6:6:
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—
The phrase old self is literally old man. The word may mean “person” as that is the way the word is used when the concern is to be inclusive of men and women, as in the doctrine of justification by faith Apostle Paul stated in Galatians 2:16:
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Justification is for both men and women so that the phrase a man is to be understood as “a person,” hence the NRSV simply used the phrase a person. In our passage of Romans 3:5, the word is used in the sense of “person,” that is, “a human being.”
In any case, the Greek sentence translated in the NIV of Romans 3:5 as I am using a human argument or literally I speak according to man appears only one other time in the apostle’s epistle to the Galatians in the apostle’s argument that the law could not supersede God’s promise to Abraham in Galatians 3:15:
Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
The translators of the NIV rendered the Greek sentence as let me take an example from everyday life although literally it reads I am speaking as a man. Of course, the apostle used it to indicate that what he was about to state in Galatians following the literal sentence I am speaking as a man is something that is common knowledge to them. In our passage of Romans 3:5, the sentence means that the apostle speaks in human terms or speaks as a human would. The issue, of course, concerns what the apostle was referring to when he used the sentence. He was referring to the questions he asked. So, it could be that the apostle meant to say that the question he asked was rhetorical as some people would think or that the question he asked is naturally one that would be raised by the fact that God inflicts punishment on sinners. That aside, the apostle was apologetic, so to say, when he stated I am using a human argument in that he felt that the question that suggests God is unjust should not even be asked. Anyway, the apostle commented on the nature of his questions that he had already asked, before he continued with the answer to the last question That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? he asked and with further questions he was about to ask
The answer to the last rhetorical question of Romans 3:5 leads to the second assertion or point the apostle made in the passage we are studying. The second point that is related to the first is that God’s judgment of the world proves He is not unjust. This point, as we said previously, is derived from the answer to the last question of verse 5 that concerns God’s justice or righteousness. The apostle answered the question in an emphatic manner to indicate that God is not unjust. We say this because of the beginning phrase of Romans 3:6 Certainly not! A literal translation is Never may it be! This is because the apostle used a Greek phrase or formula (mē genoito) that is used predominantly in the Greek NT by Apostle Paul in that of its fifteen occurrences the apostle used it fourteen times. The only occurrence of the Greek phrase or formula outside the epistles of the apostle is by Luke to report the response of those who heard the Parable of Tenants that the Lord Jesus Christ gave as recorded in Luke 20:16:
He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”
The apostle used the Greek phrase or formula predominantly in his epistle to the Romans where he used it ten times and all after a rhetorical question. That aside, the Greek phrase or formula consists of a Greek particle and a verb. The Greek particle (mē) the apostle used may be used as a marker of negation that means “not.” It is a particle of negation that is a subjective negative, implying a conditional and hypothetical negation that is different from another Greek negative particle (ou) that is an objective negative that denies the reality of alleged fact fully and absolutely. Our Greek particle (mē) may be used as a marker of negative purpose with the meaning “so that not, lest.” It may be used as a marker of a question where a negative answer “no” is expected. According to the Greek Grammar of A.T. Robertson, it is an “unsteady particle, a hesitating negative, an indirect or subjective denial, an effort to prevent (prohibit) what has not yet happened.” The fact that our Greek particle may be used to prevent what has not yet happened made it suitable for Apostle Paul to use it in our verse of Romans 3:6. This makes sense because of the Greek verb used in the Greek phrase or formula. The Greek verb (ginomai) used may mean “to be” although it is different from another Greek word (eimi) that may also mean “to be” in that our Greek word emphasizes that of being what one was not before. That aside, our Greek word has several meanings. For example, it may mean “to come into existence” so may have the sense of “to perform” as it is used for the description of the miracles of the apostles in Acts 5:12:
The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.
The word may mean “to become something” as Apostle Paul used it in cautioning believers not to become stumbling block to others in their use of their freedom in Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:9:
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
In our passage of Romans 3:6, the general sense of the word is “to happen.” Thus, the Greek phrase or formula (mē genoito) translated in the NIV Certainly not or literally Never may it be is intended to convey a strong negation of something that should not happen or occur. Hence, the apostle states emphatically that it cannot happen for God to be unjust. Positively, this means emphatically that God is just. The formula that the apostle used here echoed what is expressed severally in the Scripture. Take for example, when Abraham pleaded with Yahweh not to destroy Sodom although he was concerned with his nephew, Lot, he posed a question that conveyed that God is just as implied in Genesis 18:25:
Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Job’s friend, Bildad, asserted the same truth as he argued with Job concerning his plight as we read in Job 8:3:
Does God pervert justice? Does the Almighty pervert what is right?
There is more to the apostle’s declaration that led to the second point we are considering, that is, God’s judgment of the world proves He is not unjust, but we are out of time so we will continue with it in our next study. However, let me end by reminding you of the message of this section that we are considering which is that God is just in His punishing of human sinfulness and so, you should avoid His punishment by avoiding sinfulness.
02/13/26