Romans 3:1–8 (ESV)✞: God’s Righteousness Upheld
Passage
Over the last few passages Paul has been articulating the “problem” humanity faces: we’re all sinful. All of us – every single one. In the last passage he called out the fact that even the Law can’t make us righteous before God.
But that leads to an obvious question, which Paul now rhetorically raises:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
It’s worth reminding ourselves that calling a man circumcised (in Paul’s day) was essentially the same as calling him Jewish, and saying a man wasn’t circumcised was the same as saying he’s not Jewish – or not really Jewish. In most contexts in the Bible circumcision is used in more of a spiritual sense than purely physical; it’s a metaphor for belonging to God. (Kind of like when we refer to “those who wear the uniform,” meaning people who are in the military. The fact that they’re wearing a uniform is probably the least important aspect of their military service, but it’s a shorthand.)
So Paul—in classic Biblical fashion—is asking the same question in two different ways: if the Law doesn’t make us righteous, then what good is it to be Jewish? Paul will spend these eight verses answering that question but it’s not a clear answer, there are some twists and turns.
Paul starts his answer pretty bluntly:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way.
Romans 3:1–2 (ESV)✞, emphasis added
“Is there any reason to be Jewish?” he rhetorically asks himself, and then answers, “Yeah, a lot!” This looks even more emphatic in the New International Version, where the translators added an exclamation mark:
1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way!
Part of the reason Paul is writing this letter to the Christians in Rome is to get the Jewish and Gentile believers to get along better, but he’s not going to simply throw out all of Judaism in order to do so. The history between God and His people goes back thousands of years, and, frankly, much of what we know about God comes from their Scriptures:
To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
If we just take a very blunt measurement, there’s a lot more Old Testament than there is New Testament, so we learn a lot about God, and His character, and His values, and what He requires from us, from the oracles which were entrusted to His people in what we now call the Old Testament (and what Paul simply would have called the Scriptures).
So there is an advantage to Jewish Christians because they have so much history to build on. Let’s be careful with that word “advantage,” however! In verse 9✞ Paul will say that the Jews are not “better off” than other Christians because, as he’s already shown, we’re all under sin. When Paul says here that being a Jewish believer is an “advantage” what he means (I think) is that that person has a lot more appreciation for who God is, has a much deeper basis of understanding of God’s righteousness, than someone without that history. It doesn’t mean, however that that person is therefore a “better Christian,” or “more righteous” than Gentile believers.
Regardless of those “advantages,” however, we also know that not all of God’s chosen people have always been faithful to Him:
3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
And when I first read this verse my initial reaction is always to think this is a silly argument. Why would a person’s unfaithfulness nullify the faith of the person they’re supposed to be faithful to? If a Jewish person was supposed to be faithful to God, and wasn’t, then of course we blame the person not the God; if a man is supposed to be faithful to his wife and isn’t then of course we blame the man not the wife.
Except that we—as in humans—get this wrong all the time. I think my initial reaction was correct, it is silly, but it’s something we do regularly. Lots of people have made this same argument against Christians that Paul is talking about against the Jews: if Christians haven’t been living up to their standards then there’s no reason to believe in God! If you think about it this doesn’t make sense: if Christians haven’t been living up to our standards then we should blame the Christians, not the God! But it’s a common argument. (And let’s be honest: it’s very common for a wife to be blamed when her husband cheats on her, too! This seems to be a thoroughly human habit!)
So Paul is right to address this argument because he knows it’ll come up. He’s saying that there is “advantage” to being a Jewish believer, but someone might point out that many Jews throughout history haven’t been faithful, so why should we care about the faithfulness of God?
Because people are people but God is God:
4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,
“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”
(This is a quote from Psalm 51 (ESV)✞.)
If every single person in the entirety of the Old Testament had been unfaithful Paul’s point wouldn’t have changed a bit! Regardless of how faithful I am or am not towards God He will always be faithful to me. Not because of me, but because of Him – He’s faithful because that’s part of His character! By being faithful to me, even when I’m not faithful to Him, He is being true to Himself.
And Paul is talking about Jews, not Christians, but the same point applies. Throughout the entirety of the Old Testament we see God’s people failing to be faithful to Him, and Him being faithful to them regardless. I, as a Christian, am an extension of that faithfulness, because throughout the history of the world God had been working toward the fulfillment of all of His promises on the cross, making me one of His chosen people. The main difference between me and God’s people in the Old Testament is that I now have the Holy Spirit; even though I’m just as sinful as anyone in the Old Testament, I also have a newfound ability to be more faithful than they were through His power.
So humans aren’t faithful but God is. So far so good; whether someone agrees with that point or not, it’s logical. In fact, we can push it a bit further: if people are unfaithful and God is faithful, then… our lack of faith actually amplifies His faith! Him remaining faithful to us in the face of our unrighteousness demonstrates His faith all the more.
And actually… that’s what Christians are supposed to do, right? Declare the glory of God? So… isn’t He being unfair to judge us for doing the very thing that’s emphasising His qualities?
That’s the next rhetorical question Paul asks, as he follows his logical train of thought:
5 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.)
We shouldn’t be surprised that Paul says the answer to this question is no:
6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world?
What interests me about Paul’s objection here is what he takes for granted: instead of thinking about whether God has the right to judge or whether He should judge, Paul makes the underlying assumption that God does judge the world. God has already told us that He is the judge, so Paul is taking God at His word: given that fact, how do we make sense of all of these objections? If God is the judge, then He must have the moral standing to do so!
But Paul isn’t done with the rhetorical argument. Why should we be condemned as sinners if our sin is actually furthering His kingdom?
7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying.
It’s interesting to note that some were accusing Paul and his colleagues of doing that very thing.
In Chapter 6✞ Paul will have a more fulsome response to this argument, but for now he is very succinct:
Their condemnation is just.
For the time being, he can’t even bring himself to get into an idea he feels is beneath him, just pointing out that people who think this way will be condemned, and justly so.
Thoughts
It’s worth recalling that most Christians in Paul’s day were of a Jewish background – in fact, they still called themselves Jews. They didn’t renounce Judaism to follow “the Way” (the word “Christianity” was still only being used as an insult), they were Jewish and still considered themselves to be Jewish, seeing Christ as an extension of all of God’s promises in the Scriptures. (Which is exactly what He was, which is part of Paul’s point in this section.)
This same issue occurred in Acts: the early Jewish Christians still called themselves Jews and the Christians were being persecuted by “the Jews” (which meant the Jewish leadership), but the context always made it very clear who was who. In Romans, Paul will be talking to “Jews” (that is, Jewish Christians), and sometimes talking about “Jews” (that is, non-Christian Jews), so I’m going to have to be careful about keeping track of context in every scenario!
No comments:
Post a Comment