Romans

3:1-8

Arguments in support of the proposition, 1:18-11:36

1. The impartial nature of God's righteous condemnation of universal sin, 1:18-3:20

vi] The law is not devalued, nor is sin promoted, by setting aside the law as a means of appropriating God's favor

Paul now answers two objections to his rather negative approach of those who submit themselves to the law of Moses for blessing, namely, that he devalues the covenant/law and that he promotes libertarianism.

Most commentators admit the complexity of verses 1-8, made more complex by the many presuppositions which control the interpretation of this passage. Dodd even suggests that Paul's argument is "obscure and feeble", but we are best to concur with Godet who said that the passage is "one of the most difficult, perhaps, in the epistle." The best we can make of the passage is that Paul leaves aside his argument concerning the state of sin, for those who continue under the law, and touches on two particular objections.

i] Paul devalues the covenant/law, teaching that Jewish heritage is of no value in the Christian church, 3:1-4. This idea which would greatly affront the sensibilities of nomist believers, particularly those with Jewish heritage. The logic of Paul's position is that there is no advantage in law-obedience for the appropriation of God's favor, but as a sop to Jewish sensibilities he notes Israel's possession of the covenant, although having broken the covenant, Israel has forfeited its promises. This may imply that human sin has thwarted God's sovereign intensions, but those intentions are fulfilled in Christ, the true remnant of Israel, along with those who are in Christ. Paul will develop this argument in chapters 9-11.

ii] Paul devalues the power of sin, happily removing the controlling power of the law, such that one could argue in the end, "why not sin that grace may abound?" 3:5-8. It could be argued that Paul's "gospel" is libertarian, that by devaluing the law it promotes sin. One could even logically construe from Paul's gospel that sin, rather than submission to the law, contributes to God's glory. Paul will deal with this false premise in chapters 6-8.

Some commentators argue that Paul quotes the objections, others that the objections are Paul's and serve only to further his argument. Many commentators argue for thee objections. Hunter summarizes them nicely: a] "If every difference between Jew and Gentile vanishes, are we to conclude that membership of the Chosen People carries no advantage with it?" b] "It is obvious that some Jews by their unbelief are forfeiting the promises. Will their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness?" c] "If our wickedness (says the Jewish heckler) serves to show the righteousness of God, is it not unfair of God to inflict his wrath upon us?"

The first objection, v1-4: "If God's righteous judgment, of blessing or cursing, is irrespective of covenant fidelity (submission to the law, circumcision), is there any value in affirming Jewish heritage, any value in circumcision? Yes, of course there is (kind of!!!)."

ti oun "what then" - Introducing a logical question prompted by the argument so far.

to perisson adj. "advantage" - the pre-eminence, over and above. Thus, NIV, "advantage". The question implies that, given Paul's argument, there is none. "What then does the Jew possess which others have not?", Barrett.

hJ wfeleia (a) "value" - gain, advantage, profit, value. "What is the use of circumcision?", Barclay.

polu kata tanta "much in every way" - much according to all / of every kind. A Jewish heritage gives a believer many advantages, although Paul only names one general advantage here, but then goes on to qualify it, cf. 9:4-5.

prwton "first" - Possibly first in a list, but probably first in superiority, so Moo, "chiefly", AV.

episteuqhsan (epipisteuw) aor. pas. + acc. "they have been entrusted with" - they were entrusted with [something]. The divine election of Israel "bestowed special privileges upon them", although such privilege was a "terrible one", Barrett.

ta logia "the very words of God" - the oracles of God. Possibly "the scriptures", although an unusual term for them. Specifically "the covenant and its promises", Dumbrell, "his word of promise", Morris, but not the "Jewish communication as God's messengers to the world based on Torah", Wright. See Morris for other possibilities.

gar "-" - for. Is cause/reason being expressed? In questions, often not. Possibly "what then if some ...."

tineV "some" - Not all Jews are unfaithful. Christ was faithful and those who are "in Christ", by grace through faith, are faithful, but better, there were Jews, like Abraham, who lived by faith, as opposed to the "some" who were "unfaithful", living by obedience to the law. "Some of them were undoubtedly faithless", Phillips. For the new perspective commentator the "some" are important. The remnant of Israel was indeed faithful to the covenant, living by faith, fulfilling the law through obedience and sacrifice where there was sin. The "some" who were unfaithful destroyed the possibility of Israel as a whole from fulfilling its covenant responsibilities, of being a light to the Gentiles, and thus providing salvation to the world. Yet, the faithlessness of the "some" did not thwart God's covenant promises now fulfilled in Christ, the remnant of God, and through Christ, "the equality of salvation" for both Jew and Gentile.

hpisthsan (apisteuw) aor. "did not have faith" - disbelieving / unfaithful. Translations and commentators are divided on whether lack of faith is intended, as NIV, "unbelieving", Barrett, which is the more common sense of the word in the NT, or unfaithfulness, in the sense of "untrue to their trust", Lightfoot, or more pointedly, "infidelity to the law", Dumbrell; "what if some were unfaithful?", NRSV. "Unbelieving" seems best.

katarghsei (katargew) fut. "will ..... nullify" - will nullify, make of no effect, render invalid. A word with multiple meanings in the NT. As derived, the word takes the sense "to make to do absolutely no work", so "make inoperative", Morris. "Make completely inoperative / put out of use", Delling.

hJ apistia (a) "lack of faith" - unbelief / unfaithfulness. See above, so as NIV.

mh genoito aor. opt. "not at all" - may it not be. Expressing a negative wish. "God forbid!", Barclay. Paul expresses an emphatic denial of the implication in the question in v3 that God would not follow through on his promises, ie., be unfaithful.

ginesqw (ginomai) imp. "let [God be true]" - let be. The imperative expressing a command. Obviously not "let God become", but more in the sense "let the presence of God be recognized", "be found", Lightfoot; "let God be seen to be true", Cassirer.

de "and" - but, and. Here contrastive.

kaqwV gegraptai "as it is written" - Quote is from Psalm 51:4, "you are right when you accuse me and justified in passing sentence", REB. God's judgment on sin is totally appropriate and does not cross over his covenant promises. Some argue that the quote serves to introduce the second objection, see Cranfield.

oJpwV an + subj. "so that [you may be proved right]" - that [you may be justified]. This construction expresses purpose although the proper construction is oJpwV an + fut.

dikaiwqhV (dikaiow) aor. subj. "you may be proved right" - Obviously not "justified" in the sense of "made right", but rather "shown to be right / in the right", as NIV.

en + dat. "when [you speak]" - in [your speech]. Possibly temporal, as NIV, but more likely instrumental, "by means of", Morris.

nikhseiV (nikaw) fut. "prevail" - [so that] ... you will be victor, conqueror. Here Paul has properly used the future tense for the oJpwV an construction", see above. You will win the case", REB.

en tw/ + inf. "when [you judge]" - in the [judgment]. This construction is usually temporal, as NIV. "You will win the case", REB. The case is won when God is judged / assessed by his creation (the infinitive being treated as passive, so Lightfoot) and stands vindicated.

The second objection, v5-8. The punch-line of the objection is most likely quoted in v8, with the other verses representing Paul's own argumentative style. "If my covenant infidelity promotes God's covenant fidelity, is it not unjust of God to judge my failure. In fact, taking the logic one step further, why not sin that grace may abound?"

ei + ind. "if" - Conditional sentence, 1st class condition, where the condition is assumed to be true; "if, as is the case .... then ...."

hJmwn pro. "our [unrighteousness]" - Since this question derives from Paul's law-bound critics, the "our" would indicate Jewish believers, with whom Paul happily identifies. Other suggestions include, "Jews", Moo, "mankind", Dumbrell, "Christians", Lenski.

sunisthsin (sunisthmi) pres. ind. "brings out .... more clearly" - demonstrates, exhibits. Taking a general sense "to bring together / stand together", the word was used legally in the sense "to prove", and therefore "demonstrate / show"; "exhibits God's justice more clearly", Cassirer, but possibly "serves to confirm the justice of God", NRSV. Something stronger is possible, "commend", AV.

qeou dikaiosunhn (h) "God's righteousness" - righteousness of God. We can dispense with the pietistic idea of "God's righteousness" as a divine morality to be lived out by faith, and must choose between the genitive "of God" being partitive, "that status of being right with God which comes as his gift", O'Brien; or possessive/subjective, "the saving activity of God", Talbert, "God's dynamic fidelity to his covenant promises", Dumbrell. See The righteousness of God.

mh "-" - This negation is used for a question expecting a negative answer, lit. "is God, the one inflicting wrath, unrighteous?"

kata anrwpon legw "I am using a human argument" - according to man I say. "(This, of course, is the argument posed by my nomist brothers and sisters)."

mh genoito "certainly not" - may it not be so. "What a load of rubbish."

epei "if that were so" - because, since, for. Here "for otherwise", BDF456/3, a classical usage.

krinei (krinw) fut. "could [God] judge" - will judge. If God is not willing to condemn sinners, then how can he preside over the judgment of the world?

ton kosmon (oV) "the world" - Not just Israel. Paul again alludes to universal sin and condemnation.

"It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then whey should he repay me by judging me a sinner?", Phillips.

de "Someone might argue" - but, and. Variant gar, "for", exists, which would imply that v7 and 8 are a further development of the argument, but it seems more likely that they simply restate v5 and 6, so Metzger etc. "Or again", Cassirer.

ei + ind. "if" - if [my ....]. Conditional clause, 1st class, where the condition is assumed to be true, "if as is the case ..."
      "enhances" - This verb supplied by NIV.

en + dat. "-" - [falsehood] by [me]. The preposition here is obviously instrumental.

tw/ yeusmati (a atoV) "falsehood" - untruthfulness. Possibly "undependability", Morris, "my lie, that is, practice contrary to truth", Wesley.

eperisseusen (perisseuw) aor. "increases" - abounds. The subtle strength of this verb, as opposed tosunisthmi, v5, "promote" as opposed to "reveal", indicates the hand of the objector. "My lack of integrity promotes the integrity of God to his glory."

kagw "[why am I] still [condemned]" - also. Here not "also" but "actually", Moule. "Why am I actually judged to be a sinner?" Barrett.

kai "-" - and. This connective encourages quite a number of different ways to tie v8 to v7. Cranfield opts for UBS4, as NIV, a question mark at the end of v7 and at the end of agaqa, "that good may result?" The "and", untranslated in the NIV, implies that v8 is linked to v7, possibly a restatement of v7. The argument tends to be over whether v8 is Paul's response to v7, an objection posed to Paul, or whether v8 is another objection, see Moo. It seems likely that the quote in v8, unlike v1-7, records the actual words of Paul's objectors - it serves as the "illogical" conclusion of their argument. "Why not go all the way and suggest that we teach (as some actually slaughterously do), 'hey, lets live it up ... it will make God look even better'", cf. Junkins.

mh "[why] not [say]" - The negation here is difficult to translate. When part of a question it implies a negative answer, but most translations have difficulty expressing this idea. Morris suggests "do we say perhaps ......?" obviously not. "Do you really think that the gospel we proclaim promotes the notion that ......?"

legein oJti "that we say" - Infinitive with hoti introducing a dependent statement, here direct discourse.

poihswmen (poiew) aor. subj. "let us do [evil]" - let us practise. Hortatory subjunctive.

ta kaka adj. "evil" - evil things. The plural obviously indicates a string of evil acts, even possibly habitual evil.

iJna + subj. "that [ ... may result]" - Forming a purpose clause, "in order that ..."

w| "their" - whose [condemnation]. The subject is unclear; is Paul condemning (possibly God does the condemning) those who report that he teaches this heresy, or is he condemning the heresy itself?

Romans Introduction.

lectionarystudies.com