Albert Barnes Commentary Romans 3

Romans Chapter 3

What advantage, etc. The design of the first part of this chapter is to answer some of the objections that might be offered by a Jew to the statements in the previous chapter. The first objection is stated in this verse. A Jew would naturally ask, if the view that the apostle had given were correct, what special benefit could the Jew derive from his religion? The objection would arise particularly from the position advanced (Romans 2:25–26) that if a Gentile should do the things required by the law, he would be treated as if he had been circumcised. Therefore the question, What profit is there of circumcision?

Much every way. Or, in every respect. This is the apostle's answer to the objection in Romans 3:1.

Chiefly. That is, this is the principal advantage, and one including all others. The main benefit of being a Jew is to possess the sacred Scriptures and their instructions.

Unto them were committed. Or, they were entrusted; they were confided in. The word translated "were committed" is commonly used to express faith or confidence. It implied confidence in them from God in entrusting His oracles to them.

This confidence was not misplaced, for no people ever guarded a sacred trust or deposit with more fidelity than the Jews did the sacred Scriptures.

The oracles. The word oracle among pagans properly meant the answer or response of a god, or of some priest supposed to be inspired, to an important inquiry. This answer was usually expressed in a brief, concise manner, and often with great ambiguity. The place from which such a response was usually obtained was also called an oracle, such as the oracle at Delphi, etc.

These oracles were common among pagans, and matters of great importance were usually submitted to them. The word translated as oracles occurs in the New Testament only four times: Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11; and Romans 3:2. It is evidently used here to denote the Scriptures, as being what was spoken by God, and perhaps particularly the Divine promises.

To possess these was, of course, an eminent privilege and included all others, as they instructed them in their duty and were their guide in everything that pertained to them in this life and the life to come. They also contained many precious promises respecting the future dignity of the nation in reference to the Messiah. No higher favour can be conferred on a people than to be put in possession of the sacred Scriptures. And this fact should stir us to gratitude and lead us to strive to extend them to other nations as well. (Psalms 147:19–20).

For what if some did not believe? This should be understood as another objection from a Jew. "What then? Or what follows? If it is admitted that some of the nation did not believe, does it not follow that the faithfulness of God in his promises will fail?"

The points of the objection are these:

1. The apostle had maintained that the nation was sinful (Romans 2); that is, that they had not obeyed or believed God.

2. This the objector for the moment admits, or supposes, in relation to some of them.

3. But he then asks whether this does not involve an unacceptable consequence: that God is unfaithful.

   Did not the fact that God chose them as his people, and entered into covenant with them, imply that the Jews should be kept from perdition?

   It was evidently their belief that all Jews would be saved—and this belief they based on his covenant with their fathers.

   The doctrine of the apostle (Romans 2) would seem to imply that, in certain respects, they were on a level with the Gentile nations; that if they sinned, they would be treated just like the heathen.

   Hence they asked, of what value was the promise of God? Had it not become vain and worthless?

Make the faith. The word faith here evidently means the faithfulness or fidelity of God to his promises. (2 Timothy 3:10; Hosea 2:20).

Without effect. Destroy it; or prevent him from fulfilling his promises. The meaning of the objection is that the supposed fact—that the Jews would become unfaithful and be lost—would imply that God had failed to keep his promises to the nation. Or, it would imply that he had made promises which the outcome showed he was not able to perform.

God forbid. In Greek, this means, “Let not this be.” The sense is, Let not this by any means be supposed. This is the apostle's answer, showing that no such consequence followed from his doctrines. He argues that if any such consequence were to follow, the doctrine should be immediately abandoned, and that every man, no matter who, should rather be considered false than God.

The veracity of God was a great first principle, which was to be upheld, whatever the consequence might be. This implies that the apostle believed that the fidelity of God could be maintained in strict consistency with the fact that any number of the Jews might be found to be unfaithful and be cast off.

The apostle has not entered into an explanation of this, or shown how it could be, but it is not difficult to understand how it was. The promise made to Abraham and the fathers was not unconditional and absolute, stipulating that all the Jews should be saved. It was implied that they were to be obedient; and that if they were not, they would be cast off (Genesis 18:19).

Though the apostle has not stated it here, he has nevertheless considered it at length in another part of this epistle. He showed that it was not only consistent with the original promise that a part of the Jews should be found unfaithful and be cast off, but that it had actually occurred according to the prophets (Romans 10:16–21; Romans 11:1).

Thus, the fidelity of God was preserved, while at the same time it was a matter of fact that no small part of the nation was rejected and lost.

Let God be true. Let God be considered true and faithful, whatever consequence may follow. This was a first principle, and should be now, that God should be believed to be a God of truth, whatever consequence it might involve.

How happy would it be if all people would regard this as a fixed principle—a matter not to be questioned in their hearts or debated—that God is true to His word! How much doubt and anxiety it would save professing Christians, and how much error it would save among sinners! Amid all the agitations of the world—all conflicts, debates, and trials—it would be a fixed position where every person might find rest, and which would do more than all other things to calm the tempests and smooth the agitated waves of human life.

But every man a liar; meaning, though every person and every other opinion should be found to be false. Of course, this included the apostle and his reasoning, and the expression is one of those that show his magnanimity and greatness of soul. It implies that every opinion which he and all others held—every doctrine that had been defended—should be immediately abandoned if it implied that God was false.

It was to be assumed as a first principle in all religion and all reasoning that if a doctrine implied that God was not faithful, it was, of course, a false doctrine. This showed his firm conviction that the doctrine he advanced was strictly in accordance with the veracity of the Divine promise.

What a noble principle this is! How strikingly it illustrates the humility of true piety, and the confidence that true piety places in God above all the deductions of human reason! And if all people were willing to sacrifice their opinions when they appeared to impinge on the veracity of God, if they recoiled with instinctive shuddering at the very supposition of such a lack of fidelity in him, how soon it would end the boastings of error, the pride of philosophy, and lofty dictation in religion! No one with this feeling could be a Universalist for a moment, and no one could be an infidel.

As it is written (Psalms 51:4). To confirm the sentiment he had just advanced, and to show that it accorded with the spirit of religion as expressed in the Jewish writings, the apostle appeals to the language of David, uttered in a state of deep penitence for past transgressions.

Of all quotations ever made, this is one of the most beautiful and most fitting. David was overwhelmed with grief; he saw his crime to be awful; he feared the displeasure of God and trembled before him. Yet he held it as a fixed, indisputable principle, that GOD WAS RIGHT.

This he never once thought of calling into question. He had sinned against God, against God only; and he did not once think of questioning the fact that God was altogether just in reproving him for his sin and in pronouncing against him the sentence of condemnation.

That you might be justified. This means that you might be regarded as just or right, or that it may appear that God is not unjust. This does not mean that David had sinned against God for the purpose of justifying him, but that he now clearly saw that his sin had been so directly against him, and so aggravated, that God was right in his sentence of condemnation.

In your sayings. This means in what you have spoken; that is, in your sentence of condemnation, in your words concerning this offense. It may help us to understand this to remember that the psalm was written immediately after Nathan, at God's command, had gone to reprove David for his crime (see the title of the psalm). God, by the mouth of Nathan, had expressly condemned David for his crime. David doubtless refers to this expression of condemnation with the phrase "in your sayings" (see 2 Samuel 12:7–13).

And might overcome. In the Hebrew, this is “might be pure,” or might be considered pure, or just. The word that the Septuagint and the apostle have used, “might overcome,” is sometimes used with reference to litigations or trials in a court of justice.

He who was accused and acquitted, or who was adjudged to be innocent, might be said to overcome, or to gain the cause. The expression is used this way here. As if there were a trial between David and God, God would overcome; that is, God would be considered pure and righteous in his sentence condemning David's crime.

When you are judged. The Hebrew is, when you judge; that is, in your judgment pronounced on this crime. The Greek may also be in the middle voice as well as the passive, and may therefore correspond precisely in meaning with the Hebrew. The Arabic also renders it this way. The Syriac renders it, “when they (that is, men) shall judge you.”

The meaning, as expressed by David, is that God is to be considered right and just in condemning people for their sins, and that a true penitent—that is, a person placed in the best circumstances to form a proper estimate of God—will see this, even though it should condemn himself.

The meaning of the expression in the connection in which Paul uses it is that it is to be held as a fixed, unwavering principle that God is right and true, whatever consequences it may involve, whatever doctrine it may overthrow, or whatever person it may prove to be a liar.

But if our unrighteousness. If our sin—the particular sin that had been specified in Romans 3:3 was unbelief. But the apostle here gives the objection a general form. This is to be regarded as an objection that a Jew might raise. The force of it is this:

1. It had been conceded that some had not believed; that is, had sinned.
2. But God was true to His promises. Notwithstanding their sin, God's character was the same. Indeed,
3. in the very midst of sin, and as one of the results of it, the character of God as a just Being shone out illustriously. The question then was:
4. If His glory resulted from it—if the effect of all was to show that His character was pure—how could He punish that sin from which His own glory resulted? And this is a question that is often asked by sinners.

Commend. Recommend; display; make illustrious.

The righteousness of God. His just and holy character. This was the effect on David's mind, that he saw more clearly the justice of God in His threats against sin, in consequence of his own transgression. And if this effect followed, if honour was thus done to God, the question was, how He could consistently punish that which tended to promote His own glory?

What shall we say? What follows? Or, what is the inference? This is a mode of speech as if the objector hesitated about expressing an inference that would seem to follow, but which was horrible in its character. Is God unrighteous? The meaning of this would be better expressed thus: "Is not God unrighteous in punishing? Does it not follow, that if God is honoured by sin, it would be wrong for Him to inflict punishment?"

Who taketh vengeance. The meaning of this is simply, who inflicts punishment. The idea of vengeance is not necessarily in the original, orgēn. It is commonly rendered wrath, but it often means simply punishment, without any reference to the state of the mind of Him who inflicts it (Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; Luke 21:23; John 3:36).

See Barnes on Romans 1:18 and Romans 4:15.

I speak as a man. I speak after the manner of men. I speak as appears to be the case from a human viewpoint, or as it would strike the human mind.

It does not mean that the language was such as wicked men were accustomed to use; rather, the objector expressed a sentiment that, from a human perspective, would seem to follow from what had been said.

I regard this as the language of an objector. It implies a degree of reverence for the character of God and a seeming unwillingness to state an objection that seemed dishonourable to God, but which nevertheless pressed itself so strongly on the mind as to appear irresistible. No way of stating the objection could have been more artful or impressive.