But if our unrighteousness - If our sin. The particular sin which had been specified Romans 3:3 was "unbelief." But the apostle here gives the objection a general form. This is to be regarded as an objection which a Jew might make. 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. Nay,

(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 which is often asked by sinners.

Commend - Recommend; show forth; render 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 threatenings against sin, in consequence of his own transgression. And if this effect followed, if honor was thus done to God, the question was, how he could consistently punish what 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 which 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 honored by sin, that 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 ὀργήν 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. Notes, Romans 1:18; Romans 4:15.

I speak as a man - I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind. It does not mean that the language was such as wicked people were accustomed to use; but that the objector expressed a sentiment which to human view would seem to follow from what had been said. This I regard 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 which seemed to be dishonorable to God, but which nevertheless pressed itself so strong on the mind as to appear irresistible. No way of stating the objection could have been more artful or impressive.

Jew. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God - May we not suppose that our unrighteousness may serve to commend and illustrate the mercy of God in keeping and fulfilling to us the promise which he made to our forefathers? The more wicked we are, the more his faithfulness to his ancient promise is to be admired. And if so, would not God appear unjust in taking vengeance and casting us off?

I speak as a man - I feel for the situation both of myself and my countrymen, and it is natural for one to speak as I do.

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,.... Hence it appears, that the unrighteousness of men commends the righteousness, or faithfulness of God; and yet all unrighteousness is sin; the wrath of God is revealed against it; and would exclude from heaven, were it not for pardon through the blood of Christ; and besides, the one is contrary to the other, and of itself, of its own nature, cannot influence and affect the other: wherefore this can only be understood of the manifestation and illustration of, the righteousness of God by it; which is covered and commended, in punishing the unrighteousness of men; in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for sin; and in fulfilling his promises, notwithstanding the failings of his people, of which the case of David is a pregnant proof; just as the love of God is illustrated and commended, by the consideration of the sins of men, for whom Christ died, and his grace and mercy in the conversion of them: but if this be true,

what shall we say? shall we allow the following question to be put? this answers to , "what is there to say", or "to be said?" a way of speaking, often used by the Talmudists (n):

is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? if the premises are true, this is a just consequence of them; whereas God does take vengeance on men for their unrighteousness, both here and hereafter, it must be a piece of unrighteousness in him so to do; since that for which he takes vengeance on them commends his own righteousness; but that you may know as well by what follows, that this is not an inference of his own, but another's, he adds,

I speak as a man; , "according to the language of the children of men", a phrase often used by the Jewish doctors (o). The apostle did not speak the sentiments of his own mind, he represented another man, and spoke in the language of an adversary.

(n) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 4. 1. & passim. (o) T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 11. 1. & passim.

Commend (συνίστησιν)

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.

Who taketh vengeance (ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν)

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.

As a man (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον)

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.

{2} But if our {g} unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as {h} a man)

(2) Another objection resulting from the former answer: that the justice of God is commended and set forth by our unrighteousness in such a way that God does not therefore forget that he is the judge of the world, and therefore a most severe avenger of unrighteousness.

(g) Treachery, and all the fruits of it.

(h) Therefore I do not speak these words of my own accord, as though this is what I thought, but this is the talk of man's wisdom, which is not subject to the will of God.

3:5 But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, etc. Here is presented the Jews' third objection to the conclusion that Israel is under judgment for sin. Paul has just shown that God's righteousness is shown forth in condemning the Jews for their unbelief. But, says the Jew, if our unrighteousness demonstrates God's faithfulness, when he condemns us for unbelief, it is right that we should be punished? Our sin gives occasion for God's holiness to be shown forth. Why, then, should we be punished for furnishing such an occasion? Speaking after the manner of men, is not God unrighteous, when he sends wrath on our nation for its unbelief ?

3:5 But, it may be farther objected, if our unrighteousness be subservient to God's glory, is it not unjust in him to punish us for it? I speak as a man - As human weakness would be apt to speak.

Margin righteousness

See Scofield Note: "Rom 3:21".

5, 6. But if, &c.-Another objection: "It would appear, then, that the more faithless we are, so much the more illustrious will the fidelity of God appear; and in that case, for Him to take vengeance on us for our unfaithfulness would be (to speak as men profanely do) unrighteousness in God."

Answer:

3:1-8 The law could not save in or from sins, yet it gave the Jews advantages for obtaining salvation. Their stated ordinances, education in the knowledge of the true God and his service, and many favours shown to the children of Abraham, all were means of grace, and doubtless were made useful to the conversion of many. But especially the Scriptures were committed to them. Enjoyment of God's word and ordinances, is the chief happiness of a people. But God's promises are made only to believers; therefore the unbelief of some, or of many professors, cannot make this faithfulness of no effect. He will fulfil his promises to his people, and bring his threatened vengeance upon unbelievers. God's judging the world, should for ever silence all doubtings and reflections upon his justice. The wickedness and obstinate unbelief of the Jews, proved man's need of the righteousness of God by faith, and also his justice in punishing for sin. Let us do evil, that good may come, is oftener in the heart than in the mouth of sinners; for few thus justify themselves in their wicked ways. The believer knows that duty belongs to him, and events to God; and that he must not commit any sin, or speak one falsehood, upon the hope, or even assurance, that God may thereby glorify himself. If any speak and act thus, their condemnation is just.