The noun rendered doing wrong appears also in 1.18 (evil ways), 1.29 (wickedness), and 2.8 (what is wrong). Here it stands in formal contrast to God’s doing right (literally “righteousness of God”). Although the phrase God’s doing right is essentially the same phrase that Paul uses in 1.17, it is clear that Paul uses the phrase in a different sense in the present context. Whereas in the former passage it is used in the general Pauline sense of God’s placing men in a right relationship with himself, here it refers to an attribute of God, specifically the fact that God is right and does what is right. The phrase God’s doing right is translated in a variety of ways (Moffatt “the justice of God”; Jerusalem Bible “his integrity”; New English Bible “God’s justice”; Phillips “the goodness of God”; and An American Translation* “the uprightness of God”).
This first question in verse 5 is particularly difficult to translate, primarily since it involves two kinds of events, our doing wrong and God’s doing right, in which the one distinctly affects the other. Moreover, the expression serves to show up more clearly is often difficult, since there is no indication to whom God’s doing right is shown up more clearly. It may, therefore, be necessary to recast this question in a somewhat different form—for example, “But what, if when we do wrong, people can see more clearly that God does right?” or “But what if, by our doing wrong, God’s doing right is shown to people so that they can see it more clearly?” For languages in which this type of question presents difficulties, it is possible to change to a nonquestion form, by introducing some type of context such as “men may argue” or “some men may say”—for example, “But some men argue that when we do wrong people can see more clearly how God does right.”
The question what can we say? is equivalent in some languages to “how can we answer this argument?,” “what can we say in response?,” or “is there an answer to this argument?” For languages in which such rhetorical question are not possible, one can always say “but there is an answer to this argument.”
The word rendered does wrong comes from the same stem as the word doing wrong in the earlier part of the verse.
When he punishes us is literally “bringing wrath on us,” but in the present context the reference is to punishment (see New English Bible “to bring retribution upon us”; An American Translation* “to inflict punishment”; and Phillips “to punish us”).
The question That God does wrong when he punishes us? may require some introductory phrase—for example, “Can we argue that…” or “Can we say….” Again, for languages which cannot employ such a rhetorical question, one may say: “Men may even argue that God does wrong when he punishes us.”
By his statement I speak here as men do (see 6.19; 1 Corinthians 9.8; Galatians 3.15), Paul means that he is presenting arguments based on human wisdom. This statement is best understood as parenthetical (see New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, and An American Translation*).
It may be necessary in rendering the verb do to make it somewhat more specific—for example, “I speak here as men ordinarily speak.” Some type of modifier such as “ordinarily” may be required in order to indicate that this is not necessarily what men do on all occasions but what is their habitual practice.
For languages in which the rhetorical questions of verse 5 are changed into nonquestions introduced by some expression relating to the way in which people argue such issues, it is not necessary to introduce this parenthetical statement I speak here as men do, since in reality the contents of this parenthetical sentence have been, as it were, redistributed as introductory features to the earlier sentences of the verse.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .