Questions and Answers for Expounding Literary Units of Romans
Rom. 1:1-7 Salutation
(1:1-7) Many matters are touched on in Paul's salutation to the believers in Rome. Is it possible, then, to discover one controlling theme that gives unity to all that is said?
ANS. Jesus Christ is the controlling theme. Paul is the servant of Jesus Christ (v. 1) to advance the Gospel, which centers in God's Son, Jesus Christ (vv. 3-4). It is Jesus Christ who graciously commissioned Paul and the other apostles to effect an obedience of faith among all ethnic groups on earth for the sake of Jesus Christ. This obedience of faith is for the "sake of Jesus Christ" in the sense that it is through his finished work on the cross that his great blessings of his salvation can be enjoyed by all people groups of earth who respond to his finished work by an obedience from faith in him. The believers at Rome, belonging to many different races, are an example of how all peoples can belong to Jesus Christ through this obedience (vv. 5-6). Grace and peace, two major features of blessing Jesus made possible, come to all.
The blessings come from Jesus Christ. They go out from him to all peoples on earth, who benefit from his blessings by entrusting themselves to him. All credit therefore goes to him.
(1:3) Why does One who is already the Son of God (v. 3) then need to be designated as such by being raised from the dead?
ANS. Verse 3 goes on to speak of how Jesus came into the stream of history through the lineage of David. (He was not, however, begotten in that lineage, and Paul's use of the word "come into" instead of "begotten" may indicate his awareness of Jesus' virgin birth.) So there is a need for this person, apparently just one individual in the sea of humanity, to stand out from others as being God's only Son by his rising from the dead.
Two remarks:
(1) Protestantism's great concern has been to define the "obedience stemming from faith" (v. 5) as limited to an appropriation of Jesus' finished work on the cross, which excludes any change of heart attitude. "Faith freely justifies. . . not by imputing faith itself, nor the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to [believers] as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them. . . which faith believers have not of themselves, [but] is the gift of God" (Westminster Confession, XI, 1). "We are justified by faith alone, faith without works, faith (though including all, yet) including no good work" (John Wesley, Journal, Sept. 9, l739).
But many Bible verses talk of continued obedience as an integral aspect of saving faith. Two examples: "He who is believing on the Son [continuous tense] is having eternal life, but he who is not obeying the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (John 3:36). "Jesus became the source of eternal salvation to all that obey him" (Heb. 5:9).
Also Rom. 1:8, coming soon after verse 5, speaks of how the Roman believers' faith resulted in such a marked change in their behavior that news of it had spread to many parts of the Roman empire.
(2) Dr. Ralph Winter, founder of the United States Center For World Mission, has succeeded in convincing many missionary leaders that "nations" in 1:5 and in similar passages (e.g., Matt. 28:19-20) are not political entities. In commenting on Genesis 12:3, where God told Abraham that all nations would bless themselves in his seed, Winter said,
"The concept of 'country' or a politically defined nation is totally absent [in Gen. 12:3]. The fact that not countries, but rather ethnic units or people groups, is what is implied [here] is made even more pointed when in a number of places (e.g., Rev. 5:9; 10:11; etc.) not only is the word 'nation' used, but it is further spelled out as peoples, tribes, tongues and kindred." Ralph D. Winter, "The Task Remaining: All Humanity in Mission Perspective," Perspectives on the World Christian Movement (Pasadena; William Carey Library, 1981), p. 313.
(1:7) Grace precedes peace in the benediction of verse 7. But why could not the order just as well be "peace and grace"?
ANS. Only through the initiative of God's grace in sending Jesus to atone for our sins can we children of wrath enjoy peace with God and learn to behave properly so we develop harmony and avoid strife with others.
Romans 1:8-12 Opening words
(1:8-9) Besides the request that God would open a way for him to visit Rome, what was Paul's main concern in his continued prayers for the Roman church?
ANS. Before mentioning these prayers (v. 9) Paul speaks of how he thanked God for the exemplary and noteworthy behavior the Roman believers' faith had produced. Since he is so thankful for this, his prayer for the Roman believers during these years must have been for their faith to flourish. Also, his statement (v. 12) that his purpose, when he does finally reach Rome, will be to encourage the faith of believers--this is another evidence that Paul's consuming concern as a gospel minister was to advance people's faith.
(1:11) In Paul's thinking what common feature existed in each of the spiritual gifts that he and the Roman believers were to share?
ANS. Each had to have the capacity to encourage and strengthen peoples' faith, that is, to increase their confidence that Jesus' great love for them would sustain them through any of the adversities that could befall them in the future. At the conclusion of the literary unit starting now at 1:13, Paul lists all the enemies that can threaten life and triumphantly declares that none of them can separate us from Jesus' love (8:38-39).
Romans 1:13-18 Introduction
(1:13-15) We are accustomed to think that incurring a debt is limited to borrowing money from an individual or group. So what had happened to Paul that made him a debtor to everybody on earth?
ANS. One also becomes a debtor by learning about something that is of great benefit to others. When this happens (e.g., Jonas Salk's developing the polio vaccine) that person becomes obligated to do everything possible to tell others how they can enjoy this benefit.
See the example in 2 Kings 7:9, where the starving lepers, who had found the enemy's tents vacated but full of food, declared that they must tell the starving city of Samaria about it, for "if we are silent . . .punishment will overtake us."
The Gospel's power to effect "salvation" (v. 16) involves an immense benefit--many of its blessings are detailed Romans 5:1--8:39. So like the lepers of Samaria Paul felt he had no right to remain silent but must do all he could to make these blessings known. He felt this so keenly that in another letter he said, "Woe [the pangs of hell] to me if I preach not the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:16).
As an apostle his whole aim in life was to effect in all of earth's ethnic entities an obedience stemming from faith (1:5). We non-apostolic Christians can have no less a purpose.
(1:16) In expressing the worth of the blessing that believing the gospel brings, why didn't Paul affirm his enthusiasm positively, instead of resorting to the understatement of the double negative "I am not ashamed. . ."?
ANS. A positive statement of these blessings would have involved using many superlatives. This could have seemed like overstatement to some readers. So Paul resorted to the understatement of the double negative "I am not ashamed. . ." As a result the reader has to expend some energy in imagining how the gospel's salvation would excite Paul. Thus Paul effectively communicated his enthusiasm without risking a loss of credibility.
(1:17) This verse sets forth another element of the gospel, the revelation of the righteousness of God. Should we regard this element as defining "the power of God unto salvation," or stating the basis upon which God unleashes his power to bring people into the blessings of salvation?
ANS. The conjunction "for" signals that v. 17 is an argument for what precedes in v. 16. An argument is always some statement distinct and different from what it is arguing for. Arguments and conclusions can never be restatements of each other. Therefore "the righteousness of God" is an essential basis for the gospel so that it can then be the power of God unto salvation for believing people.
(1:17) Why must God's omnipotence in saving sinners be controlled by a consideration of whether or not he is righteous in doing this?
ANS. God's omnipotence can be directed toward doing only righteous things. "God cannot lie" (Heb. 6:18; Tit. 1:2). He can do nothing that would profane the glory of his holy name (Isa. 48:11). So verse 17 supports verse 16 by saying that the expression of God's power in bringing salvation to believers is done entirely under the authorization of his righteousness.
There is need for this new revelation of God's righteousness to warrant the use of his power to bring salvation to sinful people, because verse 18 asserts that already God's righteousness is employing his power in working wrath against humankind for their wickedness. So the declaration of verse 17 provides great assurance to people, who are now smitten by his wrath, that they can now enjoy God's power working to save them.
Some important Berean principles
(1:16-18) How can the "for" introducing verse 18's statement that God's wrath is revealed against everyone's unrighteousness be a support for verse 17's statement that the revelation of God's righteousness warrants the use of his power for people's salvation (v. 16?)? How can punishment be a support for people's salvation?
ANS. Working backwards from verse 18 the argument runs this way: since God's righteousness is presently manifesting itself in his wrath and punishment (v. 18), therefore in order for God to direct his power in salvaging people (v. 16) whom he is now punishing there must be a different revelation of his righteousness (v.17) from that now manifesting itself in his wrath.
Romans 1:19 -- 2:16 God's wrath upon all humankind
(1:19-20) How can verses 19-20 be an argument for verse 18, when these verses stating how clearly God's majesty has always been known in the world he created have nothing in them to support Paul's saying that God's wrath is currently being revealed against people's ungodliness and wickedness?
ANS. Verses 19-20 do not argue for the main clause of verse 18, but for the adjectival clause modifying "men" near the end of verse 18. The point made in this clause is that people suppress the truth in their wickedness. Verses 19-20 support this by telling where the truth is located that people suppress. It exists in creation, which clearly displays God's eternal power and deity. This truth is confronting everyone at all times. But people's delight in doing wickedness makes them insensitive to creation's message that God should be worshipped because he is the source of all their blessings.
(1:21-23) How do these verses that speak of people's preference to worship idols rather than God continue the train of thought that vv. 19-20 carried on from v. 18?
ANS. These verses provide support for the first half of the indictment of 1:18b that "people (a) by their wickedness (b) hold down the truth." (Verses 19-20 upheld the second half by telling of the pervasiveness of the truth that people suppress.)
(1:24-25) How shall we know how God's wrath is now being revealed against people (1:18) when Paul does not use this word again until 2:5?
ANS. Starting with verse 18 the logical sequence was wrath (a conclusion--18a), supported by an indictment (l8b), and evidence upholding this indictment (19-23). So when verse 24 with its "therefore" indicates a conclusion, we know that we are back on the logical level of 18a, and so verse 24's statement about God's giving people up to homosexuality cites one specific way he is revealing his wrath.
Verses 26-27, likewise a conclusion introduced by a "for this reason" (akin to "therefore") based on verse 25 and restating people's wickedness as in 21-23, tells more about how God's wrath is manifested in giving people up to homosexuality. The main clause of verses 28-31 is introduced by a "therefore" rising from a statement about how people refused to have God in their knowledge. There follows a lengthy listing of people's evil behavior patterns. People's enslavement to such inclinations are the main ways God's wrath (1:18) is now being revealed against humankind.
(1:25) In saying that "God is blessed for ever!" (1:25) is Paul talking about (a) God's own happiness (how blessed he is), or about (b) how he should be blessed (praised) for giving us such great blessings?
ANS. (b), the latter. God is responsible for all the blessings of creation that make life so dear. People should exult in what he has done in creating them and their world. But instead they persist in committing the cosmic outrage of fashioning idols and honoring them as though they held the key to their future.
(1:25) How can Paul regard God as worthy of eternal adoration ("God is blessed for ever! Amen" 1:25) when he responds to people's unrighteousness by causing such impure desires to prevail in their minds (vv. 24, 26-31) that they abuse the human body, God's masterpiece of creation?
ANS. To this cosmic outrage of people's idolatry God must respond righteously, in a way that brings full honor to the worth of his name and all that he stands for (Isa. 48:11). If he remained indifferent to people's idolatry, God would imply that He was not really, after all, that worthy of people's adoration, in spite of his having created them and their world. So he responds to idolatry by giving people up to perverse desires and behaviors as abhorrent as is the outrage of their preference to worship hand-wrought, lifeless snakes rather than God. If people reject God as the source of all their blessings, then it is only fitting that such people be given up to behaviors so abhorrent that they tear apart society's fabric.
(1:26-27) NOTE. "For this reason. . ." Bereans pause to consider just why God gave people up to homosexuality and lesbianism. (They must always seek to understand how arguments argue.) The reason was given in the preceding answer.
Since something less than 10% of the population is homosexual, why does Paul use 50% of the space of vv. 24-31 for spelling out how God's wrath is revealed against all of humankind?
ANS. Paul could have started with the extensive list of impure desires and dishonorable passions (29-31) that are distributed throughout the whole human race. Everyone gives evidence of the revelation of God's wrath by being inclined to at least several of the items in the list.
My guess as to why Paul gave this disproportionate emphasis to homosexuality is that it is the most striking proof that God's wrath is being revealed against humankind (1:18).
(1:29-32) People practicing the behavior patterns listed in verses 29-31 know that they are so improper (v. 28) as to be worthy of death and disapproved by society (32a). Hence they quickly condemn such behavior in others (2:1-2). How then can they approvingly join with those having the same behavior patterns (32b)?
ANS. My guess is that they do this to find some "moral support" for their abhorrent behavior. That others will accept them and talk about the evil inclinations they share in common--this helps them forget that their controlling inclinations and resulting behavior make them worthy of death.
(1:32) But if people can succeed in forgetting how bad their conduct is, in what sense then can they still KNOW God's decree that they will be punished by death for practicing such things (v. 31a)?
ANS. They continue to "know" that such conduct is deserving of death in the same sense that people "know" (19-20) that God should be worshipped for the benefits of creation that make life so dear. While people do manage, in both cases, to remove such knowledge from consciousness, they still "know" it in the sense that evidence urging the unwelcome conclusion keeps pressing in on them from all sides.
(2:2-6) In what various ways do people avoid facing up to being punished by death for their hateful behavior?
ANS. (1) By gaining support for their wickedness through associating with similarly wicked people (1:32). (2) By identifying hateful behavior in others. They delude themselves into thinking that with such razor sharp ability to see wrong in others, they must be people deserving of life (2:1, 3). (3) 2:4-5 indicates that people infer from the length of time they can go on enjoying life without turning from their wickedness that God has decided to overlook it and not to punish them (1:29-31; 2:1, 3).
But Paul destroys all this delusional thinking by saying (2:2, 6) that a day is coming in which God will most certainly judge people on the basis of how they themselves have behaved. People's knowledge of the right, manifest in their ability to see wrong in others, will constitute no mitigating circumstance. And the extended time God's kindness gives people to repent will only increase their punishment because they kept on sinning during all this time.
(2:9-10) By the phrase "for the Jew first" in verses 9 and 10 (cf. also 1:16) are we to understand that (a) there is something about Jewishness that makes them more readily suited to receive either God's punishment or blessings, or that (b) this phrase was Paul's way of emphasizing that what he is saying applies just as much to Jews as to Gentiles despite the special dealings God has had with Israel during the preceding two thousand years?
ANS. (b), because Jews had come to regard God as making exceptions for them on account of the special things he had done for them ever since Abraham. This phrase "the Jew first" tends to acknowledge the special history Jews have enjoyed and at the same time drives home to them that they, just as much as the Gentiles, will be judged not for what they know (or have written in their law) but on the basis of how they actually behave.
(2:7, 10) Is the glory and honor which people are to seek through steadfastness in doing good works (a) a glory in boasting about their good works as a product of their own resolve and discipline, or (b) a glorying in God, whose dependable kindness provides the foundation and incentive for obeying his instructions?
ANS. (b), because not even hypothetically could Paul be validating people's doing good works so they could brag about them. The Paul who regards primal sin to consist in not giving glory to God (1:21-23) would not permit even the thought of someone's being so perfect that God himself would have to praise that person. But works stemming from God's forgiveness and an obedience from faith in what he promises (1:5) can only give all credit to God.
Obviously the good works of 2:7 would have to begin with the repentance of 2:4 in response to the urging of God's kindness. God's forgiveness for the sins a repenting person does is necessarily implied in the immediate context here. Since these good works come in response to God's love and kindness, it would be impossible to boast in them.
(2:11-12) How can God justly punish sinful people who, unlike the Jews, have had no law to spell out the aspects of what it means to be righteous?
ANS. In 1:32--2:3 Paul emphasized that people everywhere are so fully aware of what constitutes praiseworthy living that they quickly identify death-deserving behavior in others. So everyone has access to the knowledge of what is right. Hence the Gentiles, who unlike the Jews have no written law detailing praiseworthy behavior, are just as responsible to be righteous as the Jews who do have this law.
(2:13) Should the statement, "The doers of the law shall be justified," be understood (1) as an abstract possibility of how people will be saved if they keep the law perfectly (though no one ever does), or (2) as signaling the obedience to the law that begins with the repenting and banking of one's hope on God's kindness (2:4)?
ANS. (2), the latter, because
(a) the point made in the preceding train of thought is that enjoying God's favor depends on doing righteousness (2:2-3; 6-7; 10-11).
(b) All repentance from sin must be a compliance with the law, because the repentance of 2:4 is a repentance from wickedness (1:32-2:3) to the doing of good works (2:6-7, 10-11), which the law enjoins (2:13).
(c) God's forgiveness of sins is necessarily implied in the kindness he extends to sinful people in urging them to repent. 2:4 makes it clear that repentance is a turning to this kindness and that would be possible only by being assured of God's forgiveness for one's sins.
(d) The "doing of the law" to be justified does not have to mean perfect compliance here any more than in Rom. 8:4, which speaks of the righteous demand of the law as being fulfilled in those who walk in the Holy Spirit. But it surely does mean a compliance with the law made possible only by being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:7), for those not indwelt by the Spirit are in such rebellion against God that they cannot even begin to be subject to his law. According to Rom. 8:13 only those living according to the Spirit, and not the flesh, will live.
(e) Such repentance is a decisive aspect of gaining acceptance with God, for Paul proceeds to say in verses 14-15 that as a result of the recently-inaugurated Gentile mission, certain Gentiles, not exposed to the law like the Jews, have had a change of heart ("nature"--v. 14) because of the law's being written on their hearts by regeneration (cf. Jer. 31:31-34). This repentance is as effectual in bringing them to God as it is for any Jews doing the same. Such Gentiles have had the secrets of their hearts judged and laid bare as they have heard the preaching of the Gospel (v. 16; cf. 1 Cor. 14:24-25) and so have repented and become born again.
NOTE. My mentor at the U. of Basel, the late Prof. Dr. Bo Reicke, in "Syneidesis in Roem. 2, 15,"Theologische Zeitschrift "l2 (1956), 157-161, has given the best interpretation of 2:l5-l6 I know of. He translated these verses as follows:
15 Certain Gentiles are showing [present tense] the work of the law written in their hearts [cf. Jer. 31:31ff. ], in that their feelings shared with each other for thoughts which accuse or even excuse them is confirmed 16 in the day when God judges [present tense! cf. 1 Cor. 14:24f] the hidden things of people according to my gospel through Jesus Christ.
NOTE. Protestantism's understanding of "the doers of the law shall be justified" (2:13) as setting forth a hypothetical way of salvation (e.g., Calvin, Inst. III, 17.13; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 123-24) comes from nothing explicit in the preceding train of thought, but from its need for a "theological exegesis."
Romans 2:17 - 29 God's wrath upon the Jews
(2:17-22) We note that verses 17-20 are stated as rhetorical questions. We need to grasp the meaning of these by restating them declaratively. What do the restatements say?
ANS. "You teach others, but you do not teach yourself"; "you preach against stealing, but nevertheless you steal "; "you say, 'Don't commit adultery', but then you commit it"; and "you abhor idolatry, yet you rob temples [to enhance your idol collection?]."
(2:17-20) What kind of adverbial clauses do we then have in 17-20 after the main clauses have been thus restated?
ANS. They shift from being conditional "if" clauses to being concessive "although" clauses. Hence the overall thought structure of verses 17-20 and 21-23 is "Although you are a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God . . . . (vv. 17-20), yet you dishonor God by violating the law in which you boast" (vv. 21- 23).
(2:21-22) What role does Paul's charging Jews with such outrageous sins as robbery, adultery, and sacrilege (2:21-22) play in proving that they are as much under God's wrath as the Gentiles (1:18), when most Jews, like most Gentiles, do not appear to be robbers, adulterers, and sacrilegious?
ANS. Paul's charging Jews with these heinous sins is an incisive way of indicting them as guilty before God. But this is only the indictment; the proof of it follows, commencing with the "for" introducing verse 24.
(2:23-24) What is the common-ground evidence in v. 24 that leads to the conclusion that the Jews are manifestly guilty of being as flagrant violators of their own law (v. 23) as if they were noted for being robbers, adulterers, and sacreligious?
ANS. The Jews' own scriptures affirm that non-Jews blaspheme the God of Israel because Jewish behavior is so at odds with the Jewish law. "On account of you [Jews] my name [God's] is continually blasphemed among the nations" (Isa. 52:5). "[You Israelites] have blasphemed [my great name] in the midst of the nations" (Eze. 36:23). Hence the Jewish behavior that leads non-Jews to blaspheme God must be reprehensible enough to regard Jews as under God's wrath (1:18) for flouting his law.
(2:25) In Paul's thinking did one "break" (transgress) the law by (a) "failing in any respect in his duty" (Calvin, Inst. II, 7.15), or by (b) behaving in a way that scorns the law?
ANS. (b), because in Jewish thinking many sins could be forgiven, especially on the annual Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:30). Numbers 15:27-31 also speaks of forgiveness for sins that fall short of being done "with a high hand" and an attitude that "reviles God" (v. 30). So Jews do not become outlaws for these sins. They turn their circumcision into uncircumcision, not by "venial" sins, but by a disposition at odds with their law's basic thrust.
(2:25) Both Paul and the Jews greatly valued circumcision. But its value for Paul lay in something different from what made it valuable for the Jews. What was this difference?
ANS. The Jews tended to regard God's statement to Abraham that "any uncircumcised male. . . shall be cut off from his people" (Gen. 17:14) as meaning that the rite of circumcision itself was the virtual test of whether or not one belonged to the community of Israel. But Paul regarded circumcision as representing the forgiveness (imputed righteousness) Abraham had been enjoying (Gen. 15:6) and the holy living to which God had called him (Gen. 17:1). So the circumcision of those descendants of Abraham who lacked his righteous disposition had to be an uncircumcision.
(2:25) What common ground should lead Jews to agree that such a transgression of the law invalidated one's circumcision?
ANS. The canonical scriptures talked of the need for circumcised Jews also to have a circumcised heart (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25-26). These passages make clear that the lack of such a heart invalidates one's circumcision.
(2:26) What common ground proves that a godly Gentile's uncircumcision should be counted for circumcision?
ANS. Jer. 9:25-26 says that Israel's evil heart made her circumcision into the uncircumcision of her neighbors. If this is so then a circumcised heart makes one's uncircumcision into circumcision.
(2:27) Does Paul's reference to "the written code" signify (a) a defect inherent in the law's verbal nature, or (b) a defect the law came to have for the Jews because of their emphatic boasting over their possession of it in writing (2:23) and resting in a presumption that this possession gave them an advantage before God not enjoyed by non-Jews (2:17)?
ANS. (b), because Paul places "the written code" alongside "circumcision" -- both outward signs in which Jews prided themselves. Therefore the law brought condemnation on the Jews not because its written nature hindered them from keeping the spirit of the law, but because boasting and displaying their possession of it flouted the thrust of the law which is to make people God's humble supplicants (cf. 2:23).
(2:27-29) In speaking of how a godly, uncircumcised person can indict a circumcised Jew for "breaking" the law, was Paul referring to the Jews' lapses into sin, or (b) to the Jews' criminality in repudiating "the spirit of their law" by vaunting their distinction of being the possessors of God's written law?
ANS. (b), because in vv. 28-29 Paul indicated that the distinctive quality of a "real Jew" consists in an inward disposition of heart, and not on some outward symbols. The common ground for this conclusion is that the term "Jew" comes from Judah, the greater of the two tribes left after the destruction of the northern ten tribes in 721 BC. So this term relates back to Abraham, through Jacob and Isaac. Hence to qualify as a Jew one should have Abraham's disposition of heart, and value circumcision as signifying this disposition.
(2:29) Why should we want to receive praise from God, when it has been emphasized that sin consists in wanting to receive praise for oneself rather than rendering it to God (1:21, 25)?
ANS. We are to render praise to God for all his benefits to us. God delights in the praise he receives, and this means he must delight in the praise giver. Consequently, such receive praise from God for exulting in what he does, and not for what they have accomplished by their own resolve.
Romans 3:1-9 The Jewish advantage
(3:1-2) Paul has just said that Jewishness and circumcision give Jews no advantage before God. So how can he now say that there is much advantage in circumcision and being a Jew in every way?
ANS. This great advantage cannot include Jews' being closer to God and less under his wrath than Gentiles, for that would contradict what Paul just said in 2:24-29. Rather, this advantage exhausts itself in the many ("in every way") remarkable things God has done for Israel since the time of Abraham as part of their being his conduit for transmitting the message of redemption to the world ("salvation is from the Jews"--John 4:32). Also, from what is said just ahead in v.3 about God's faithfulness in keeping his promises to Israel, this advantage includes their eventual conversion when God writes his laws on their hearts (Jer. 31:31-34) and all alive then become the real Jews just defined in 2:29.
(3:3) This verse reads as Paul's answer to an objection to what he had just said in vv. 1-2. What was this objection?
ANS. "Paul, you have just talked about Israel's unfaithfulness to God in flouting his law (2:21-22) and how God will condemn them for this (2:27). So, you contradict yourself in saying in the same breath that 'Jews have every advantage'," and that they are liable to God's judgment.
(3:3) Paul's response to this objection is that for God to be righteous, he must stand by his promises to Israel, in spite of the unfaithfulness of "some" Jews in every generation since Jacob. But we readers ask, How can God be righteous in keeping these promises when his righteousness also requires him to inflict "wrath, fury, tribulation and anguish. . .to the Jew first" (2:8-9)?
ANS. God will fulfill his promises to Israel (e.g., Gen. 12:1-3) only when he writes his law on the hearts of Israelites alive at some future time (Jer. 31:31-34). Thus he is righteous (1) in standing by his promises, and also (2) by inflicting final wrath, fury, tribulation and anguish on persistent evil doers (2:8-9).
(3:4) How can Paul then say that God must remain righteous in standing by his promises to Israel ("Let God be true") even if there are no repentant Israelites ("though every man be false"), when God remains righteous by blessing only those who "do good" (2:10) and never those who remain "false?"
ANS. The statement "every man be false" refers to how widespread Jewish disobedience could become, conceivably, in the millennia before all Jews become "real Jews." Such disobedience would not weaken God's purpose to keep his promises to Israel at all. So to highlight God's righteousness as sovereign and not affected by the capriciousness of human behavior Paul speaks hypothetically of complete Jewish disobedience in the prolonged period before Israel's conversion. (The "some" in 3:3, however, indicates that Jewish disobedience never becomes that widespread.) But God remains righteous in standing by his promises to Israel because the time will come when Israelites alive then will become "real Jews."
NOTE. In answering this objection Paul has supported his thesis in 3:2 that "Jews have an advantage in every way," by arguing that God must stand by his promises to Israel in spite of the indictment against them in 2:17-29. In his many debates with Jews since his conversion on the Damascus road and during his three missionary journeys -- Romans was written at the end of third, from Corinth (Acts 19:21) -- he had often answered this objection, as well as the next one presupposed by his retort in vv. 5-8.
(3:5) Now Paul speaks as one answering another objection. What was the gist of this one?
ANS. "Paul, you underscore the sovereignty of God's righteousness by asserting that Jewish disobedience ("our wickedness") could never deflect him from fulfilling his promises to Israel and in the same breath say that God's righteousness will require him to inflict wrath on us Jews. We avoid such an inconsistency simply by resting on the promises God has made to us, and so we go on boasting in our possession of the law because it is our guarantee that God will keep these promises. We are certainly not liable to judgment like most pork-eating, Sabbath-breaking, uncircumcised Gentiles (2:27)!"
(3:6) Paul's laconic answer -- "How then could God judge the world?" -- reveals his confidence that this rhetorical question alone destroys the Jewish objection. But how would agreement about a future judgment force the objector to back track and agree that Jews not behaving as Abraham will be punished as much as any impenitent Gentile?
ANS. Jews must agree with Abraham that "the Judge of all the earth will do right" (Gen. 18:25). To the question, "On what basis will God punish the Gentiles? On not being chosen people like us Jews, or on how they have behaved?" Jews would have to answer, "Righteous conduct is all that matters with God." So what God had done for Israel in connection with giving them his law would be irrelevant at the final judgment. Only righteous conduct will matter then. Hence the God who will keep his promises for Israel will also inflict wrath on Jews who remain impenitent. So during his missionary journeys now ended Paul had been urging Jews repeatedly to become "real Jews" (2:29) if they wanted to enjoy the blessings God has promised Israel.
(3:7-8) NOTE. The Greek word the RSV translates as "but" can also mean "and." Which meaning it has in this context comes from sensing how the thought flows from vv. 5-6 to vv. 7-8. There is a continuation in this thought flow and so this word should be translated "and."
How can Paul's apparently self-defeating tactic of speaking of himself (as the Jews do) as advocating falsehood nevertheless help his argument that Jews are as much under God's wrath as the Gentiles (1:18)?
ANS. The Jews would heartily agree that Paul's supposedly treacherous betrayal of Judaism in giving away their blessings to the Gentiles ("my falsehood" -- v.7) would underscore the glory of God's righteousness in nevertheless standing by his promises to Israel. They would also affirm that God will most surely punish Paul for the enormity of his treason. But wait a minute! If Jews are so sure that God will punish Paul for his sins, then they must agree that God will surely punish them for their sin of not being "real Jews" (2:29). In affirming Paul's guilt, they must also acknowledge themselves also to be liable to God's wrath. In v. 8 Paul alludes to how Jews had slandered him by saying that his teaching encouraged Jews to sin the more because their sin would underscore God's glory in standing by his promises for Israel. But precisely by resorting to such a distortion of Paul's argument Jews find themselves making an affirmation that makes them liable to God's wrath. To condone sin that purports to accomplish greater good violates the sanctity of every commandment of the law. Hence those making such an affirmation to escape from Paul's logic succeed only in condemning themselves. Thus vv. 7-8 are a climactic support for the thesis of 1:18 that Jews, just like the rest of humankind, are under God's wrath.
(3:9) What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all [not altogether]; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,
NOTE. The answer "not at all" to the question "Are we Jews better off [than the Gentiles]?" should read (according to the Greek word order in extant texts) "not altogether." But the RSV followed the many expositors and textual critics who feel compelled to take the extreme step of construing the answer's word order to mean something else. They do this because Paul proceeds to argue that Jews and Greeks are equally under sin's power, and this argument seems better suited to support the conclusion that Jews have no advantage ("not at all") than the conclusion that they have a slight advantage ("not altogether"). So, for example, the well-known textual critic, Metzger, regards the actual word order "not altogether" to be a figurative way of saying "not at all." Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 507.
But a text's word order is sovereign. It is not a nose of wax to be molded to suit what the reader thinks the writer must have meant. Also, Paul's answer "Not altogether" (3:9) coheres well with his statement in 3:2 that Jews do have a great and important advantage over the Gentiles "in every way." Changing the text's answer in 3:9 to "Not at all" makes Paul contradict what he said only a few verses earlier.
To avoid these two severe problems I changed the RSV text accordingly. Then by e-mail I sought input from other Bereans. The Rev. Brian Borgman, a pastor in Carson, Nevada, cited one expositor who stayed with the text's "not altogether," but wondered how Paul's statement that Jews and Greeks are equally under sin's power could then argue for such an answer.
Then Dr. Ted Dorman, a professor in Biblical Studies and Historic Christian Belief at Taylor University, Indiana, observed that the "already charged" in the argument statement directed the reader back to Paul's conclusion in 2:17-29 (esp. 21-22 and 27) that the Jews in transgressing their law were as sinful as the Gentiles. Dorman then added, however, that "God's chosen people have some advantages [as Paul argued in 3:1-8], but . . . whatever advantages Jews might have over Gentiles with regard to their knowledge of the Law, [it] is no ultimate advantage because they, like Gentiles, are lawbreakers! Hope this helps." (See his contribution to "The tragic shift in Luther's thinking.")
(3:9) How does Paul's statement, "We proved before (2:17-29) that Jews are as much under sin as the Gentiles"--which seems better suited for the "altogether not" answer he did not give--nevertheless succeed in arguing for the "not altogether" answer that he did give?
ANS. The "not altogether" is an apt answer for supporting the two things Paul has been saying about the Jews since 2:17. (1) In negating, (and thereby all but eliminating) any Jewish advantage over the Gentiles this answer can go as far as necessary in affirming that Jews are as guilty before God as Gentiles. (2) In saying "not wholly" instead of "not at all" this answer leaves the room that is needed for the Jews to have an advantage over the Gentiles as God's chosen people "in every way" (3:2). Paul made it clear in 3:3-8, however, that this advantage had no effect in mitigating an unrepentant Jew's guilt before God.
(3:9) Does "under sin" mean (a) being subjected to sin's power (the RSV interpretation) , so that 3:9d is a repetition of 1:18, or (b) is "sin" the condemned state that people are under for the crime of not honoring God as God (1:21)?
ANS. (a), because the proof texts cited in 3:10-18 speak of people's actual sins and not of their liability to be punished. So "none is righteous" (3:10) does not mean "none is forgiven," but that "everyone is disposed to behave sinfully." Also, the "as" introducing these proof texts signals that they are a restatement of the "under sin" in 3:9. In that these texts specify ways people sin, and not their liability to punishment, they are saying that "under sin" (v. 9d) means being disposed to do sin's bidding, which is another way of saying "being under its power."
Romans 3:10-20 All are equally guilty
(3:10-12) Should we take the negations ("none," "no," "not") in verses 10-11 to refer to (a) people's total sinfulness, or (b) to the pervasiveness of sinful behavior in everyone?
ANS. (b), because v. 12 has two positive restatements ("all" and "together") of the negations of 10-11, and these stress sin's pervasiveness. Also, the concluding "not even one" (v. 12) indicates that Paul's aim was to cite scripture showing that, without exception, each person has a behavior syndrome, some of whose features are altogether reproachful.
NOTE. The "together" of verse 12 calls attention to how we do not sin just as individuals acting alone. Rather, one person's sinning often provides just enough encouragement for others, socially connected in some way, to take up sinning that way too. So being "under sin" means that we tend to sin "in unison."
NOTE: It is ironic that the Greek word for "gone wrong" is "be of no use to others." People's working together often results in their accomplishing much good for others, but their togetherness in sin has the opposite result of a joint effort that does much harm in fraying the fabric of society.
NOTE. These verses also imply total depravity. That "no one understands" means all are behaving foolishly. That "none seeks after God" means that all are idolatrous. And the concluding statement that "no one fears God" (v. 18) has to mean that an evil motivation is behind people's activities and aims. This adds up to total depravity.
(3:13-17) Now Paul becomes more specific about people's sins in focusing on the distinctive activities of two parts of the body: the tongue that reveals one's attitude about things, and the feet by which one's purpose is carried out. But what point was Paul trying to make in quoting an OT verse about the throat, a body part difficult to link up with any specific activity?
ANS. In Psa. 5:9 the throat is likened to a unclosed grave containing a dead body and emitting a foul odor. This odor travels upward and suggests that Paul was thinking of the throat as the seat of the tongue. This helped him to say that the evil so often evident in our words comes from a source not unlike a newly occupied and yet uncovered grave.
(3:13-14) Is the statement, "The venom of asps is under their lips" an illustration of what came before, of how we "use our tongues to deceive" (v. 13), or of what comes after, the cursing and bitterness in much of our speech?
ANS. The image of a snakes (asps) concealed under the lips fits in better with the previous statement that our talk so easily becomes deceptive (v. 14), rather than the following statement about our proneness to curse our circumstances . Likening our tongues to a serpent's fang, while the serpent itself is hidden under the tongue, is a vivid illustration how the tongue too often deceives others about the way things are and the way we feel about them. So others, responding to our words at face value, can be seriously hurt by how different things are from the way we characterized them. The shock coming from learning the truth is like being snake bitten.
(3:15-17) Do the cursing and bitterness of verse 14 stand alone, then, or are they a transition into verses 15-17?
ANS. They have a close connection with the murderous conduct of vv. 15-16, because the power of words can hurt others at least as much as bodily wounds.
(3:19) Indeed, the law speaks to the Jews who are under it as a result of their being entrusted with it (3:2). But how does this fact lead to the conclusion that the whole world is guilty before God? The distance between Jewish possession of the law and the whole world's guilt is great. What do we readers need to understand to see the connection Paul saw between the two?
ANS. The Jews' possession of God's law in writing did not help them to be kinder people. In fact their behavior was so irritating that Gentiles responded to it by blaspheming the God the Jews said had given them their code of behavior (2:23-24). But if Jews are so given over to the power of sin (1:24, 26, 28-31) that this happens in spite of the advantage of having God's law in writing (3:2), then how much less will the peoples of earth, who lack this advantage, be able to break sin's power and be godly people! Paul's argument in 3:19-20 is a fortiori ("from the stronger"). The stronger is the reproachful behavior of the Jews despite having God's law in writing. If they keep on sinning despite this advantage, then it easily follows that other peoples of the earth will also behave sinfully.
(3:19) Without possessing God's laws in writing how can non-Jews still be held guilty and not plead innocence because they lacked any access to God's laws in writing?
ANS. According to 1:32 all peoples know that the behavior characterized by each item in Paul's long list (incomplete!) of reproachful conduct in 1:26, 28-31 is worthy of death. So in that each has access to the knowledge of proper conduct none can plead innocence when they sin.
(3:20) Should we construe the term "works of law" to refer (a) to the things the law commands, or (b) to the way the law in the hands of sinful people incites behavior very opposite from its precepts?
ANS. (b), because from 1:19--3:18 Paul has said much about how mere possession of knowledge of what is right and teaching others about the right produces an illusory confidence of being righteous and acceptable to God, despite outrageous behavior to the contrary. Although all people know that certain aspects of their behavior patterns are worthy of death (1:32), they are nevertheless quick to judge others for conduct in which they themselves engage. Then they delude themselves that this sensitivity to wrong behavior in others means that they themselves are righteous people who will escape God's judgment (2:1-3).
As for the Jews, who have God's law in writing, they become deluded in thinking that in possessing it and teaching it to the Gentiles (2:17-20) they comply adequately with that law and therefore are God's people, when in fact their behavior so violates that law that it arouses non-Jews to blaspheme God (2:21-24).
So in Paul's thinking Gentile and Jewish sinfulness becomes amplified by everyone's access to law. Hence, by "works of law" Paul must mean the amplified sinfulness that law helps to produce. A frequent manifestation of the "works of law" are various outward "badges" supposedly signifying one group's moral superiority over other groups lacking these badges. The three badges for the Jews are circumcision, a kosher diet, and Sabbath keeping. Obviously, no one is justified by such an amplification of sin.
NOTE. The "works of the law" cannot refer to doing what the law commands because for Paul complying with the law results in justification (2:13), the opposite of what "works of law" do in 3:20. We hear nothing in 1:18--3:20 of the reformation way of interpreting this passage. That interpretation understands 3:20 to mean that the first task of the law, with its high and unreachable demands, is to give us the knowledge of how sinful we are because we cannot come close to complying with it. So for this reason, according to the reformation interpretation, no flesh can be justified by the works of the law. (For a more complete discussion of the biblical theology of "works of law" see Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law [1980], pp. 93-105, and Unity of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992], pp. 471-78.)
(3:20)How can the law bring the knowledge of sin (3:20b), when Paul's emphasis in 2:1-3 and 21-23 is that the law blinds people to their own sinfulness as they use it to judge reproachful behavior in others and so become unaware of being guilty of the very same conduct?
ANS. The law produces the knowledge of sin through the disparity it helps create between the sinful way people behave and their quickness to condemn the same sins appearing in others. Jews are insensitive to how they are flouting their own law while they teach non-Jews its precepts. But this disparity between their behavior and their teaching makes the sinfulness of Jews so openly manifest (known!) that many non-Jews come to blaspheme God (2:23-24). The same thing happens with non-Jews. Their behaving in ways that are regarded as worthy of death (1:32) while judging others for the same behavior makes their sin "known" in the disparity they create between practice and teaching. But in judging others for sinful conduct they succeed in repressing and even becoming oblivious to their own reproachful behavior patterns.
NOTE. The reformation idea of how the law makes us aware of sin founders on the fact that prior to his conversion Paul had no sense of guilt in failing to keep the law. In Phil. 3:6 he said that in those days he was "as to the righteousness in the law blameless." In 1 Tim. 1:15 he acknowledged that he had been "the chief of sinners" but had acted "ignorantly in unbelief" (v. 13). At that time he was so unaware of his own sin that he was "alive apart from the law" (Rom. 7:9). Before conversion on the Damascus road Paul was so blinded by his sin as to what the law was trying to say to him about it that it was as if he had no contact with it even as he studied under Rabbi Gamaliel. It was only after his conversion that he understood what the law was saying and "died" (Rom. 7:9) in the sense of having the remorse of realizing he had been the "chief of sinners," climaxing in killing and imprisoning Christians. Note also Acts 23:1, where Luke quoted Paul as declaring before the Pharisees and Sadduccees, "I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day."
Romans 3:21-31 God's righteousness in Christ's death
(3:21-22a) How can Paul say that the righteousness of God, now manifested in a non-wrathful way (cf. 1:17-18), is apart from law, and yet draws on the law and the prophets' witness to this different manifestation of righteousness?
ANS. The preceding verse (3:20) spoke of how God's wrath is revealed against all people because of their "works of law." These "works" consist of practices (e.g., judging others for sins, 2:1-3; teaching the law to the "less enlightened," 2:17-20; and practicing circumcision, 2:27) making people appear to be dedicated to righteousness and diverting attention away from their "unfitting" (1:28) behavior. Paradoxically, people resort to the righteous law for appearing righteous and covering wickedness. Hence the law amplifies their sin, not by convicting them of it, but by drawing such a stark contrast between their apparent righteousness as law biding people and their shameful practices forbidden by the very same law.
But God's law plays no such role in the very different manifestation of his righteousness to which Paul now shifts his readers' attention. Here the law (and the prophets) help define the nature of the faith in Christ necessary both to enjoy the forgiveness of sins and the consequent blessings of salvation in being adopted as God's children (cf. 1:16-17).
(3:22b-23) It is not possible to argue from "all are equally sinful" (3:22b-23) back to the proposition that "a righteousness of God is now being manifested" because there is no necessary connection between these two matters. So what is there in 3:21-22a that 3:22b-23 does support?
ANS. An implicit proposition in 3:21-22a that "the righteousness of God [is enjoyed by those] exercising faith in Jesus Christ." This proposition gets strong support from the statements in 3:22b-23 that all are equally guilty in failing to glorify God. If everyone is equally lacking in any basis for escaping God's condemnation (3:22b-23), then each must look away from himself or herself to what God does to accomplish a reconciliation (3:21-22a). And this looking away from self to what another does is the essence of faith. So 3:22b-23, introduced by the conjunction "for" argues for the implicit proposition in 3:21-22a that justification comes to those who believe in Christ. It does not argue for the explicit proposition that "a righteousness of God is now revealed. . ."
(3:24-25a) Does the "they" who "are justified [made right with God]" refer to the group in v. 23, the all [who] have sinned, OR to the group mentioned back in v. 22a, the "all who believe"?
ANS. The "they" refers to believers in Jesus (v. 22b) and not to the sinners (v. 23), because v. 25a talks of people's needing to believe in (rely on) Jesus' shed blood in order to enjoy the blessing of justification (forgiveness). These are the only ones who enjoy God's redemption. They are a group within the "all who have sinned" in 3:23, but not all that group are redeemed.
NOTE. There are two unusual words in 3:24-25a whose meanings need to be determined. An expiation restores the balance that has been disturbed by a crime and which a society needs for its members to enjoy the freedom to pursue happiness. The punishment inflicted on the criminal responsible for this imbalance is an expiation in that it relieves the anxiety a society feels when someone has committed a crime. Our sin of insulting God by our unbelief has imbalanced God's moral government of humankind and has caused us to behave toward each others in ways that unravel the fabric of society. The expiation accomplished by Jesus' death on the cross is the center piece for restoring the necessary balance to God's moral government.
A redemption refers to the price criminals pay to restore the balance a society needs to carry on. Jesus' death on the cross as a violent criminal -- what blood signified in those days -- was the loss he suffered so that we sinners, who have insulted God's honor, may nevertheless live at peace with him and have that confidence for the future that fosters behavior that strengthens society's fabric. (See Chapter 14 of my Unity of the Bible (Zondervan), 1992, for a more complete consideration of how one person, the innocent Jesus, could accomplish a redemption and expiation for sinners.)
Two more crucial terms, "free" and "grace," are considered in the following question and answer:
(3:24-25a) In what sense is this justification free ("as a gift") when its can be enjoyed only by meeting the conditions involved in receiving it by faith?
ANS. What moves a patron provider to work to benefit his or her clients is the joy of seeing one's skill and know-how meet bring benefits and meet needs for others. Indeed they receive a reimbursement for their efforts. But Studs Terkel concluded in his book on Working (1972) that people want "meaning to their work well over and beyond the reward of a paycheck" (p. xiv). Hence they work freely out of grace in that they want nothing so much as the satisfaction of benefiting others and meeting their needs.
So what concerns patron providers most in taking on prospective clients is whether or not they are going to be trusted. Hence a lawyer's first question to a prospective client often is, "Do you have full confidence in my ability to handle your problem?" Patron providers find fulfillment and a sense of satisfaction in meeting the needs of people only if they are honored by clients eager to comply with their instructions so they might receive a worker's benefits. The fee a client pays a patron provider should be viewed as part of the instructions to be obeyed in order to receive a sought after benefit. The tuition a student pays, for example, is part of the way a he or she expresses trust in a teacher's competence to impart needed instruction and training.
Patron providers, on the other hand, exult in their ability and efforts to carry out a job description in meeting people's needs. But needy patients carry out a work of faith in following a doctor's prescription because they exult in the skill and commitment of the doctor in whom they trust.
It is patron providers who exult in their ability and efforts to carry out a job description in meeting people's needs. But needy patients carry out a work of faith in following a doctor's prescription because they exult in the skill and commitment of the doctor in whom they trust.
(3:25b) Why did God's forbearance in holding back deserved judgment for many centuries need to be expiated, when forbearance is regarded as virtuous and not something vicious that tends to weaken society's fabric?
ANS. God's forbearance in delaying judgment for sins done in years past appeared as justice withheld. According to 2:4-5 it was God's kindness that delayed punishment to give people time to repent so they might escape the final judgment. But in this "passing over" or delay in punishing people's hateful behavior patterns God seems to be indifferent to conduct "worthy of death" (Rom. 1:32). When it is understood, however, that Christ's atonement extends also to God's forbearance in punishing sinners, then people's confidence in God's righteousness in upholding his glory is restored.
(3:26) Why should God's desire to forgive the sinners, often regarded as a praiseworthy and righteous quality, nevertheless imply a deficiency in God's righteousness that is cured only by Jesus' expiatory death?
ANS. God's initiative to forgive people's failure to honor him as God (1:21) makes him seem indifferent to the unsurpassed worth of his glory in forgiving this high sacrilege. But when it is understood that his forgiveness of this outrage is based on Christ's expiatory death the problem vanishes. The death of God's Son on the cross as a violent criminal in shedding his blood easily constitutes an expiation equivalent to the outrage that God overlooks in forgiving people who now glorify God in having committed their future to him.
NOTE. V. 26 speaks of a showing forth of God's righteousness in forgiving believers that is made possible by Christ's death. This is a repetition of what Paul said in 3:21 ("but now a righteousness of God has been manifested"), and back in 1:17 (in the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God) and indicates the train of thought he has been following since 1:17. In sensing this repetition the reader is helped in "catching on to what the author was up to" in writing Romans since 1:17. But it is only part of what Paul was "up to," because 1:17 provides the footing for the proposition that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation" (1:16b). For now all that can be said is that (1) this "salvation" was distinct from, although based on, God's forgiveness involved in justification, and (2) this manifestation of God's righteousness opens the door for blessings very opposite from the misery and anguish imparted by God's wrath, the other manifestation of his righteousness (1:18; 2:8-9). What this salvation involves that is so different from justification may become clear after Paul says enough about the revelation of God's righteousness (1:17; 3:21, 25-26) for the reader to grasp how this revelation does indeed provide the footing for that "salvation" that excited Paul so (1:16a) and made him a debtor to communicate it to all humankind (1:14).
(3:27-28) NOTE. In view of Paul's effort to keep the manifestation of God's righteousness in the gospel separate from the "works of law" (Romans 3:20-21, 28) many interpreters have felt compelled to translate the word for "law" in v. 27 as "principle." "Principle" can be a valid meaning for "law," and that is its meaning in 7:21 where Paul speaks of the "law," or "principle," operating in his life that causes evil so often to overcome his intention to do good.
But "principle" cannot be the valid meaning for "law" in v. 27. In his most recent reference to the "law" in 3:21 Paul placed it alongside the "prophets." They continue to be concrete entities in the OT canon. Hence the law that accompanies them in this witness must be the concrete OT law. So when "law" is reappears in v. 27, Paul is speaking of the same concrete law as in 3:21. So the law here is the Mosaic law, and it is a "law of faith" (cf. 9:32).
How can a law of faith (e.g., a doctor's Rx) exclude boasting when it requires compliance with orders just as much as a law of works (e.g., a job description)?
ANS. In a law of faith one is obeying a patron provider because of confidence in the benefit that provider will impart. So an aversion to obeying God's commandments in Moses and elsewhere in scripture constitutes unbelief -- a vote of "No confidence" in God and in the efficacy of Jesus' expiatory death. Obedience to God's commandments is an "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5). God is not served by human hands as though he needed anything (Acts 17:25), and so the only kind of commandments he would ever give would be "laws of faith" (Rom. 3:27; 9:32). So it borders on blasphemy for people to think of their obedience to God as a way of servicing his needs. It leads to people's thinking they are doing works in which they can boast, and such must be excluded (Rom. 3:27; cf. 1 Cor. 1:29ff.; Eph. 2:8-9).
NOTE. The textual evidence in support of "for" and not "therefore" as the conjunction introducing Romans 3:28 is about even. Those preferring "for" say the evidence for this is "slight" (Metzger), "somewhat better [than 'therefore']" (L. Morris). But J. Dunn sees the support for "therefore" as "strong."
My decision to go with "therefore" is for the following reasons: 1. The verb "hold" ["reckon"] is a verb best suited for a conclusion introduced by a "therefore." 2. V. 27's affirmation that the law, so of a piece with the gospel, is a law of faith no more requires further argument to stand than the similar statement in 3:21 about the law's witnessing to the gospel needed an argument. But vv. 21-22a placed the Mosaic law completely at odds with "works of law" in which sinful people misinterpret that law as a "law of works. " Therefore v. 27, in order to stand, requires no help from a footing provided v. 28. The "reckoning" in v. 28 is thus much more easily understood as a conclusion alongside v. 27 than as a support for it. 3. The "Or" introducing the rhetorical question in v. 29 behaves as a "for" would in a declarative statement. So v. 29 is an argument for the two complementary propositions in vv. 27-28 that people are justified by a faith involving compliance with God's commands as laws of faith and not as laws of works. Paul's train of thought would have been awkward if vv. 29-30 argued for v. 28, which then argued for v. 27! His line of thought flows more smoothly to understand vv. 29-30 as supporting the conclusion of vv. 27-28 by answering the Jewish objection to it.
(3:29) The two rhetorical questions in this verse echo a Jewish objection to his teaching Paul had dealt with many times. What was this objection?
ANS. A rabbi teaching in the 2nd century interpreted Exod. 20:2 "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt," to mean that while God is the God of all peoples as their creator and future judge, yet he linked up his name only with Israel. Hence God is not the God of all peoples as he is for the Jews. So Paul's objector said the something like this: "In affirming that no one is justified 'by the works of the law', Paul, you negate the worth of the three pious practices (circumcision, kosher diet, and Sabbath keeping) by which we Jews remind ourselves and others of the special people of God we have been since the days of Abraham."
Paul must overcome this objection. Otherwise his conclusion (3:28) that people are not justified by "works of law" -- drawn from how the law as a law of faith is of a piece with the gospel (3:21b, 27) -- will not stand and the gospel is invalidated.
(3:29-30) By what line of argument, based on common ground with unbelieving Jews, did Paul turn back this objection?
ANS. This passage indicates that one piece of Paul's common ground with his opponent is the Shema, the foremost creed for the Jews: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one." But neither this statement nor a similar one in Exod. 20:2 stopped the early Jewish rabbi from asserting that the one God of all the earth was especially the God of the Jews. So we conclude that it was not Paul's intention in the brief, summary nature of 3:21-31 to spell out the entire argument. We must look elsewhere in Paul's writings to find his full answer to this objection.
In Gal. 3:8-9 Paul was dealing with the same Jewish objection, but there he availed himself of Gen. 12:3 for help in countering it. In verse 8 he began, "The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed' [Gen. 12:3]." This passage put all peoples of earth on the same footing with Abraham and his Jewish descendants and destroys the Jewish claim made in Paul's time to be the only real people of God. In Gal. 3:9 he then concluded, "So then, those who are people of faith [Jews or Gentiles] are blessed with Abraham."
(3:31) How might someone surmise that Paul had invalidated the moral law of Moses law in what he has been saying?
ANS. In 3:28-30 Paul had invalidated Jewish efforts to distinguish themselves from other peoples, one of which was to flaunt their being the possessors of God's law in writing. He had also said that reconciliation with God was possible for all peoples, including Jews, by a faith had nothing to do with the Jewish "works of law" exhibited so openly in circumcision, a kosher diet, and sabbath keeping. But this special terminology has a close resemblance to "work of law" (2:15) meaning a proper compliance with God's law as a law of faith, and some readers might jump to the conclusion that Paul was distancing the gospel from the law. So he concludes this section by emphasizing, as in 3:21b and 27, the component of the law in the obedience of faith required to enjoy the blessings of the gospel ("to every one who believes" -- 1:16b).
Send comments to dfuller@fuller.edu (Daniel Fuller)