Romans 3:9

“ What then? are we sheltered?Certainly not:for we have before proved all men, both Jews and Greeks, that they are under sin. ”

If the words τί οὖν, what then, be taken as an independent question, the meaning will be: “ What, then, is the state of things? To what result are we thus brought?” But many commentators connect these two words with the following sentence, so as to form a single question. The meaning in that case is, according to the different acceptations of the verb προέχεσθαι : What have we to allege as an excuse? or: In what, then, are we superior? But neither of these meanings agrees with the answer following. Indeed, instead of in no wise. it would require to be none whatever, or in nothing. There are therefore two questions, and not merely one.

What is the sense of the verb προεχόμεθα, which by itself forms the second question? We should first testify to the correctness of the Received reading. All the MSS. are at one on this point except A L, which read the subjunctive instead of the indicative, obviously to convert the word into an exhortation, and D G, which read προκατέχομεν while adding the object περισσόν; these last, at the same time, reject the words οὐ πάντως. This is the text which Chrysostom and Theodoret seem to have followed, as well as the Itala and Peshito. The meaning would be: What superiority do we possess? It is simply an attempt to escape from the difficulty of the Received reading.

The verb προέχειν has two principal meanings in the active: to hold before (in order to protect), and to hold the first place. In the passive, the first meaning changes into to be protected; the second meaning, as being intransitive, has no passive. In the middle, the verb signifies, according to the first meaning: to protect oneself, to shelter oneself, to hold out a pretext; according to the second: to place oneself at the head, to surpass. It is logically impossible to apply here the idea of superiority, either in the passive form: Are we preferred? or in the middle form: Do we surpass? Undoubtedly these two interpretations have both found their defenders; Osterv., for example: Are we preferable? Oltram.: Have we some superiority? But the question of ascribing a superiority to the Jews had been put at Romans 3:1; the apostle had resolved it affirmatively from the theocratic standpoint. If, then, he now resolves it negatively, as he does in the following answer, it can only be from the moral point of view. But in this case he could not fail to indicate this distinction. The only appropriate meaning, therefore, is that of sheltering, which is also the most frequent in classic Greek: “Have we a shelter under which we can regard ourselves as delivered from wrath?” This meaning seems to us to be perfectly suitable. The apostle has demonstrated that the Jewish people, as well as the Gentile world, are under God's wrath. He has put to himself the objection: But what in this case becomes of the Jew's advantage? And he has proved that this advantage, perfectly real though it be, cannot hinder the rejection and judgment of this people. “What then?” he now asks as a consequence from what precedes, “can we flatter ourselves that we have a refuge?” “In no wise,” such is his answer. All is closely bound together in the reasoning thus understood.

The phrase οὐ πάντως strictly signifies: not altogether; comp. 1 Corinthians 5:10. When Paul means: not at all, he uses, in conformity with Greek custom, the form πάντως οὐ; comp. 1 Corinthians 16:12. But the first meaning is evidently too weak after the preceding argument, and in consequence of that which follows. Meyer even finds himself obliged here to abandon his philological rigorism, and to take the second meaning. And, in reality, this meaning is not incorrect. It is enough, as Morison says, to make a pause in reading after οὐ, not, adding πάντως, absolutely, as a descriptive: no, absolutely; or better: no, certainly. This meaning is that of the entirely similar phrase οὐ πάνυ in Xenophon, Demosthenes, Lucian, and even that of οὐ πάντως in two passages quoted by Morison, the one taken from classic Greek, the other from patristic.

The apostle demonstrates this negation, which refers specially to the Jews, by summing up in the following proposition the result of the long preceding indictment against the two divisions of mankind. The term αἰτιᾶσθαι, to accuse, incriminate, belongs to the language of the bar. The προ, before, previously, which enters into the composition of the verb, reminds the reader of the two great pictures which Paul had just drawn.

The phrase: to be under sin, does not merely signify: to be under the responsibility (the guilt) of sins committed, but also to be under the power of sin itself, which like a perpetual fountain constantly reproduces and increases this guilt. These two meanings, sin as a trespass, and sin as a power, are both demanded by the context, the first by the preceding, and the second by the succeeding context. In point of fact, God's wrath is not based solely on trespasses committed, which have something external and accidental in their character; it is founded, above all, on the permanent state of human nature as it is about to be described by Scripture. So long as the Scriptures had not spoken, Paul might be regarded as a simple accuser. But as soon as the voice of this judge shall be heard, the case will be determined, and the sentence pronounced. Romans 3:10-18 enumerate, if one may so speak, the grounds of judgment; Romans 3:19-20 give the sentence.

Paul first reminds his readers, in scriptural terms, of the most general characteristics of human corruption, Romans 3:10-12. Then he presents two particular classes of the manifestations of this corruption, Romans 3:13-17. Finally, he closes this description by a decisive feature which goes back to the very fountain of evil, Romans 3:18.