Romans 3 5

Romans 3:5 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)

Romans 3:5 nkjv

But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.)

Romans 3:5 niv

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.)

Romans 3:5 esv

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

Romans 3:5 nlt

"But," some might say, "our sinfulness serves a good purpose, for it helps people see how righteous God is. Isn't it unfair, then, for him to punish us?" (This is merely a human point of view.)

Romans 3 verses

Romans 3 5 Meaning

Romans 3:5 presents a rhetorical question from Paul, anticipating an objection: If human unrighteousness ultimately serves to highlight God's perfect righteousness, wouldn't it then be unjust for God to punish or take vengeance on such unrighteousness? Paul addresses a profound challenge to God's justice, where human sin seems paradoxically to display God's holy character more vividly. The verse sets the stage for Paul's defense of God's unwavering faithfulness and righteous judgment despite humanity's universal sinfulness, asserting that God's justice in punishing sin is not compromised even if sin serves a greater purpose in revealing His righteousness.

Romans 3 5 Context

Romans 3:5 is part of a larger section (Romans 3:1-8) where Paul addresses a series of rhetorical objections concerning the faithfulness of God and the status of Israel. Having established in Romans 1:18-3:20 that all humanity, both Gentiles and Jews, are universally under the power of sin and justly deserving of God's wrath, Paul anticipates Jewish counter-arguments. He raises questions about the value of being a Jew and whether God's faithfulness to His covenant promises is nullified by Israel's unfaithfulness. Verse 5 specifically posits a philosophical objection: if human unrighteousness paradoxically showcases God's righteousness, why should God still exercise His wrath? This question arises from the implication that if sin serves to commend God, then perhaps God should not punish it. Paul uses this line of questioning, characteristic of a diatribe, to decisively defend God's absolute justice and holiness in His dealings with sin.

Romans 3 5 Word analysis

• But if: Introduces a hypothetical situation, specifically an objection that Paul anticipates from an imaginary interlocutor. This is a common Pauline rhetorical device to engage with potential theological misinterpretations.

• our unrighteousness: (Greek: adikia, ἀδικία) This term signifies injustice, wickedness, and a state of being in the wrong, often in moral or legal senses. Here, it refers to human sinfulness, particularly the disobedience of those who claim to have a covenant relationship with God. The possessive "our" suggests it applies to humanity, particularly the Jews, as discussed in previous verses.

• commend: (Greek: synistemi, συνίστημι) This verb means "to stand together with," "to establish," "to prove," "to demonstrate," or "to show forth." In this context, it implies that human unrighteousness highlights or showcases God's righteousness. It's not that God needs human sin to be righteous, but that sin provides the contrasting backdrop against which His absolute holiness and justice shine.

• the righteousness of God: (Greek: dikaiosyne Theou, δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ) This pivotal Pauline phrase refers both to God's attribute of being just and holy (His intrinsic character) and to His faithful action of bringing about salvation in a righteous way (His saving work). In the immediate context, it highlights God's justice in holding humanity accountable for sin and His inherent moral rectitude that demands a response to evil.

• what shall we say?: A typical rhetorical question Paul uses to prompt the audience to consider the implications of the preceding statement and to signal his rebuttal.

• Is God unrighteous: (Greek: adikos, ἄδικος) This means "unjust," "wicked," or "unrighteous." The hypothetical objector proposes that if God somehow benefits from sin (by His righteousness being demonstrated), then He would be unjust to punish that same sin. This directly challenges God's moral integrity and consistency.

• who takes vengeance?: (Greek: epipheron ten orgen, ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν) Literally, "who brings forth the wrath." Orge (ὀργή) refers to God's holy wrath, His righteous indignation, a settled and just response to sin, not an arbitrary emotion. The objection specifically questions God's right to execute judgment and retribution if sin somehow serves a divine purpose.

• Our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God: This phrase captures the apparent paradox. While human sin (our adikia) certainly brings condemnation, it also serves as the necessary dark backdrop that profoundly illuminates God's intrinsic and active righteousness (dikaiosyne Theou). Without sin, the full depth of God's holy justice in judgment and His magnificent grace in salvation cannot be as clearly understood or appreciated. It emphasizes God's absolute holiness, which necessitates a righteous response to evil, and His glorious saving grace.

• Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance?: This complete rhetorical question embodies the essence of the objection Paul addresses. It presents the fundamental challenge: If our sin makes God's righteousness apparent, how can He, with moral consistency, then pour out His wrath on us for that sin? This line of reasoning suggests that if sin can indirectly serve a good purpose (showing God's righteousness), then the one who punishes it must be unfair. Paul is quick to dismantle this false premise.

Romans 3 5 Bonus section

The concept explored in Romans 3:5 reflects a common ancient philosophical and theological problem known as the problem of evil, specifically in relation to divine justice. Paul does not fully unpack this philosophical aspect but rather dismisses the human-centric and fallacious reasoning directly with a resounding "By no means!" (Gk: me genoito!). This powerful negative interjection, used by Paul to express vehement rejection, occurs ten times in Romans, always to repudiate a suggestion deemed unthinkable or blasphemous. In this instance, it underscores the utter impossibility of God being unrighteous. The core message is that God's intrinsic holiness and justice mean He must punish sin, and this moral necessity is not nullified by any incidental way in which sin might clarify His character. The objection itself highlights human shortsightedness in attempting to reconcile divine attributes from a limited perspective, ultimately demonstrating the crucial difference between God's sovereign purposes and humanity's accountability.

Romans 3 5 Commentary

Romans 3:5 engages with a profound theological paradox concerning God's justice and human sin. The imaginary objector posits that if human unrighteousness paradoxically serves to "commend" or demonstrate God's righteousness, then punishing such unrighteousness would be unjust. This argument subtly implies that God benefits from sin's existence by allowing His righteousness to be displayed more clearly, and thus He shouldn't condemn what seemingly contributes to His glory. Paul firmly rejects this logic in the subsequent verse (3:6). God's justice in executing wrath against sin is not negated or compromised by the fact that sin provides a stark contrast against which His holiness and ultimate plan of salvation shine. God's character of righteousness demands that sin be judged, independent of any consequential revelation of His character. His wrath is not arbitrary; it is a righteous, holy, and consistent response to rebellion against His holy nature. To suggest that God would be unrighteous in taking vengeance implies that His inherent justice and moral perfection are subservient to human actions, which is an absurdity for Paul.