Romans 3:1-8

Review

The Gospel and the Gospel alone has the power of God unto salvation Romans 1:16

Romans 1:16 ESV

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Religion is a man made substitute for the power of God and far from fixing the problem of our sinfulness. Religion only makes it worse.

Last week we talked about the law’s inability to save. And that outward circumcision was pointless without a change in the heart.

English Standard Version Chapter 3

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of 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.”

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.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 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. Their condemnation is just.

In Romans 2, Paul makes several significant claims that undermine the notion that God

favors Jews more than Gentiles. Following his claim in Romans 2:11 regarding God’s

impartiality, Paul asserts that the Gentiles have the same opportunity as the Jews to be

declared righteous, based on their following of the law that God has written on their

hearts. Conventional wisdom said that the Jews held an advantage since they were

entrusted with the law God revealed to Moses. Unless Gentiles converted to Judaism,

they were not considered part of the covenant community. Again in Rom. 2:25–29, Paul

repeats that God places equal or higher value on obedient Gentiles than the supposedly

advantaged Jews. Paul claims it is the circumcision of the heart that matters—what is

done by the Spirit rather than by human hand. The Jewish community would have been

completely unsettled by this idea.

Contrary to what some might think, Paul is not seeking to throw Judaism under the bus,

but rather to level the playing field for his argument about the gospel. Paul will highlight

Israel’s special place in God’s plan later (cf. Rom. 9:1–5; 11:17–21), but not quite yet.

For now, his audience needs to understand that all are under impending judgment for

sin and share the same need for reconciliation with God. But to gain a wider hearing,

Paul deconstructs the supposed advantages of being a Jew. He even uses the

(non)listing of advantages to do this.

The Message of Romans 3. Some Jewish Objections (3:1–8)

Paul’s method of handling Jewish objections to his teaching takes the form of a ‘diatribe’, as we have seen—a literary convention well known to philosophers in the ancient world. In it a teacher would set up a dialogue with his critics or students, first posing and then answering their questions. Paul has already begun to use this genre when addressing both the critical moralizer (2:1f.) and the Jew (2:17f.); but now he develops it further. It is not necessary to suppose that his debating opponent is imaginary or his debate fictitious. It seems more probable that he is reconstructing the actual arguments which Jews have flung at him during his synagogue evangelism. ‘It often becomes easier to follow Paul’s arguments’, writes C. K. Barrett, ‘if the reader imagines the apostle face to face with a heckler, who makes interjections and receives replies which sometimes are withering and brusque.’17 We may go further than this. ‘Paul’s interlocutor was no straw man,’ Professor Dunn writes. ‘In fact we would probably not be far from the mark if we were to conclude that Paul’s interlocutor is Paul himself—Paul the unconverted Pharisee, expressing attitudes Paul remembered so well as having been his own!’ In this way Paul the Pharisee and Paul the Christian are in debate with each other, as in

I. Entrusted with the oracles of God…however all are under sin

(Rom. 3:1-2).

The Message of Romans 3. Some Jewish Objections (3:1–8)

Objection 1: Paul’s teaching undermines God’s covenant (1–2). Paul and his critics are agreed that God chose Israel out of all the nations, made a covenant with them, and gave them circumcision as its sign and seal. But if the words ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision’ are now to be radically redefined, then What advantage … is there in being a Jew in the old sense of the term, and what value is there in circumcision in its traditional meaning (1)? For these things do not protect Jews from judgment, according to Paul.

In his answer Paul does not go back on what he has written about the real Jew and the true circumcision. The fact that being an ethnic Jew has no value in protecting from God’s judgment, however, does not mean that it is valueless. It has much value in every way, but a different kind of value, that is, responsibility rather than security. First of all (Paul is evidently intending to list several privileges, but he does not get round to it until 9:4f.), they have been entrusted with the very words of God (2). It seems clear that these ‘oracles of God’ are not just God’s commandments or promises, but the whole Old Testament Scripture which contains them and which was committed to Israel’s care. Indeed, to be the custodians of God’s special revelation was an immensely privileged responsibility; it had been given to ‘no other nation’.21

Objection 2: Paul’s teaching nullifies God’s faithfulness (3). Perhaps God’s ‘oracles’ or ‘very words’ (2) allude in particular to his promises, notably to his promise of the Messiah. If so, the objector argues, what has become of God’s promise, and (more important) of his faithfulness to his promise? What if some did not have faith, and so failed to inherit the promise? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness (3)? Paul’s teaching seemed to imply this. The play on words relating to pistis (faith or faithfulness) is more obvious in the Greek sentence than in the English. It might be rendered as follows: ‘If some to whom God’s promises were entrusted (episteuthēsan, 2) did not respond to them in trust (ēpistēsan, 3a), will their lack of trust (apistia) destroy God’s trustworthiness (pistis, 3b)?’ If God’s people are unfaithful, does that necessarily mean that he is?

Paul’s riposte (mē genoito) is more violent than is suggested by the expressions ‘Not at all!’ (NIV), ‘By no means!’ (RSV), ‘Certainly not!’ (REB) or even ‘God forbid!’ (AV). John Ziesler suggests that ‘ “not on your life” or “not in a thousand years” gives something of the flavour.’ For God will never never break his covenant, as Paul will elaborate in chapters 9–11. His truth or faithfulness is an a priori. Indeed, Let God be true, and every man a liar (4a). The first of these two propositions, writes Calvin, ‘is the primary axiom of all Christian philosophy’; the second is a quotation of