Comments on Romans 3:5-8

Timotheos,

Your translation of Romans 3:5-8 is good. For convenience I have preserved it here.

⁵ But, if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous when he inflicts wrath?—I speak on the level of human terms. ⁶ Banish the thought! Otherwise, how will God judge the world? ⁷ But if by my lie the truth of God abounds for his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? ⁸ And why not say (as we are slandered and as some claim we say) ‘Let us do evil that good may come about?’ Their condemnation is just!

I offer only the following as a suggestion for sharpening the focus of this portion of Paul's argument. Here is how I would translate verse 7--But if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?

In a paper that I wrote that is in process toward publication, I suggested,

Romans 3:1-8 functions as a junction switch box through which Paul threads all the wires of his argument in the letter and at which point he interrupts the circuit so that he does not fully answer the questions he poses in 3:1. In 9:1-11:36 he will reconnect the circuit to continue answering his questions. He does this only after he aggravates the dilemma his questions pose by arguing that the promise to Abraham is not provincial but universal.

My point is that Romans 3:1-8 serves as the beginning of Paul's prosecutorial summary statement of God's righteous case against humanity and at the same time is his defense of God's righteousness, which, after all, is the actual legal case of his argument. So, as Paul had indicated in 1:17, so now he confirms that his argument is a defense of God's righteousness, which is to say, of God's character as righteous. God is righteous to condemn unrighteous humans (1:18-2:29). The fact that since 1:17, 3:5 is his next mention of and use of the phrase dikaiosune theou ("the righteousness of God"), this passage confirms the point we made in our comments on 1:17 that Paul's phraseology--dikaiosune theou--there concerns God's character as righteous rather than God's gift of righteousness to humans. It is not, however, as if this statement denies the fact that Paul will have much to say of God's gift of righteousness to humans through Christ Jesus. It is only to say that this is neither the meaning of the phrase dikaiosune theou nor the thesis of Paul's argument. Paul's phrase throughout his letter and his argument throughout Romans concerns the character of God. This is what Paul is making quite plain now in Romans 3:1-8.

Now, if Romans 3:1-8 is, as I have suggested, "a junction switch box through which Paul threads all the wires of his argument in the letter," it is important that we recognize, as you have suggested, that Paul's argument anticipates later portions of his letter. I believe that you have rightly observed that Paul's use of the first person singular in 3:7 anticipates his use of the same in 7:7-25.

Daniel, our discussion partner in the comments feature, also rightly drew attention to the fact that 3:1-8 anticipates Paul's argument of Romans 9-11. Hence, I say, "In 9:1-11:36 he will reconnect the circuit to continue answering his questions" initially posed in 3:1-8.

I believe that it is also necessary to recognize that a foundational belief grounds Paul's defense of God's righteousness in 3:1-8 but that he has not expressly stated it yet. He will return to it in Romans 9, but for now, he assumes it for the sake of his argument in 3:1-8. We get a hint of it, if we read your comments carefully and thoughtfully. You stated,

After raising one objection and dealing with it (vv.3-4), Paul raises another objection “But, if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous when he inflicts wrath?—I speak in on the level of human terms” (v. 5). The thought here, it seems, is that if God’s righteousness is demonstrated by the unrighteousness of Israel, God, then is unrighteous, when he inflicts wrath on those who provided the context in which his righteousness is demonstrated. This objection is almost unspeakable for Paul, hence the statement regarding speaking on the level of human terms. Paul’s answer to this objection is the same as the one is verse 4, “Banish the thought!” After this, Paul fills out his reason by the use of a shared understanding. That is, it seems that with the question, “Otherwise, how will God judge the world?” Paul is assuming that his objectors believe that God will judge the world. If this is so then the reasoning would go something like the following:

The righteousness of God will be displayed as he inflicts wrath on the world, because the world is unrighteous before God. If God can be righteous by inflicting wrath on the world, because of its unrighteousness, then he can be righteous in inflicting wrath upon unrighteous Israel.

What does Paul's argument in 3:1-8 assume but leaves unstated until chapter 9? It is the fact that God ordained that Israel should be unfaithful that he might display his faithfulness to his promise to the patriarchs. God ordained that Israel should be unrighteous in order that he might demonstrate his righteousness in the gospel. God ordained that Israel should be untruthful that he might exhibit his truthfulness in Jesus Christ. God ordained that Israel should be unfaithful, unrighteous, and untruthful in order that God's own faithfulness, righteousness, and truthfulness might shine all the more brilliantly (cf. Rom 9:22ff, "What if? . . .").

This assumption is made most evident in 3:7 in two specific ways--But if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?--first with the supposition if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, and second by the question portion why am I still condemned as a sinner? The supposition links "my falsehood" (which is Paul's way of speaking of Israel's falsehood) as purposefully designed as the occasion by which "God's truthfulness abounds for his glory." This entails God's foreordination which Paul expounds substantively in chapter 9. Notice that the question why am I still condemned as a sinner? anticipates the same question Paul will raise in 9:19, "Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?" The question of 3:8 also foreshadows Paul's argument in 5:20-6:1ff, once again underscoring how central to his gospel is his belief in the sovereign foreordaining purposes of God.

In case anyone doubts the veracity of what I have just stated, Paul's words in 3:8 should put objections to rest. He states, And why not say (as we are slandered and as some claim we say) ‘Let us do evil that good may come about?’ Their condemnation is just! The charge would be pointless, if Paul's argument were not that God ordained Israel's covenant disloyalty (unfaithfulness, unrighteousness, untruthfulness). Why such a slanderous charge? It is because those who hurl the accusation do not believe in the compatibility of God's foreordaining of all things and the accountability of human sinning. In other words, subtle as it may seem to be, Paul is contending that it is vital to his gospel that he preach that God's foreordained purposes for Israel were realized through Israel's unfaithfulness, unrighteousness, and untruthfulness, for God purposed this in order that he might demonstrate his own faithfulness, righteousness, and truthfulness in the gospel, through his Son, Jesus Christ.

So, Romans 3:1-8 is crucial to Paul's argument throughout his letter. It brings to summation his argument in 1:18-2:29 and at the same time foreshadows all that he will argue in 3:21 forward. And, germane to Paul's gospel is his resolute belief that God planned Israel's unfaithfulness as much as he planned for his Son's faithfulness as the ground upon which he would justify sinners.

Paulos