Romans 3:1-8 How to Understand the Relationship Between the Gospel and Jewish History

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

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.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

If God's purposes were brought about apart from the law of Moses then does this not render Judaism arbitrary? This was the false assumption many had brought against the message Paul was bringing. They had assumptions about the purpose of the law that were incompatible with its intended purpose. The law was not a means to an end. Many today still stumble over the notion that they will be right with God through the law or any good works. This is not how the bible frames the law, humanity, and God.

In versus 1-4 Paul challenges his audience to live out the circumcision that is concomitant to the law. He knows they can't do it. If anyone should know it was Paul, he was a Pharisee himself. He was a rising star in his ranks. Yet, he turned away from it. Realizing that it was not law that was going to make man right before God. If one wanted to be justified through observance of the law they must be circumcised and keep the law. Again, Paul knew this was not possible as demonstrated in 2:21-24. This being the case, then how could circumcision (and all of Jewish history, circumcision is a proxy for Judaism here) have value? First, despite the well documented failings of Israel God preserved a faithful remnant, this would constitute an advantage. The Oracles Paul is referring to would include salvation (according to Tom Schreiner among other commentaries). This salvation is found in Christ due to faith as Paul will lay out in Chapter 4 when dealing with Abraham. Secondly, God was glorified and prevailed when judged. Finally, had the old covenant only served to glorify God and nothing else it would have been enough, but he did more. So we see that the gospel in no way makes Jewish history meaning less, rather it is the fulfillment of Jewish history. This leads to an ironic twist. In the old covenant if one wanted to be faithful one must be circumcised. In the new covenant circumcision was now a vestigial doctrine and a sign of faithlessness for the new had come.

Paul had been preaching for around twenty years by the time he wrote Romans and was very familiar with Jewish objections. In versus 5-8 we see a response to some criticism. First, I would like to cross over a point I have been making concerning Velvet Elvis. There seems to be an Americanized version of Christianity that I am witnessing in that book and in my conversations. This view of Christianity is summed up by the words of a conversation I had with someone Friday, they told me, "I love Jesus and Jesus loves me and that's all I need to get where I am going." This is far from the gauntlet thrown down to us by the authors of scripture. We are to think. We are to combat the ideas of our time, if for no other reason for the benefit of others. It was C.S. Lewis that said that good philosophy must exist if for no other reason than to combat bad philosophy. Paul was not content to let bad ideas go unchallenged and these versus are an example. If God demonstrates his righteousness through the wrongdoing then on what grounds could he judge? After all, his purposes were fulfilled. If this is the argument that Paul's contemporaries were bringing then Paul has a question for them, how could God then judge anyone? For the whole world has done wrong. He is taking their argument to their teleological realization. And if this is the case why are Paul's enemies saying that God will condemn him for the gospel he preaches? Should not his detractors just be happy that God is being glorified? But God does judge and inflict wrath on all who violate the law. So circumcision is not enough. We must be justified and we are not doing a very good job of doing that on our own. Some had told Paul that by the logic of his gospel one ought to do evil so that more good would come. The more God justifies evil the more good comes of it. But those being justified were showing God to be just. As we witnessed in the latter portion of chapter 2, verse 27 "Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law." So Paul responds to this argument with "Their condemnation is just." For they are left with their hypocrisy before God while the church shows the righteousnesses of God by his overlooking past sins and the faithful life they now live by his power. Think of it this way, when Jesus was forgiving sins it was a sign of his divinity for only God could forgive sin. So if the church is forgiven then God has revealed his righteousness in his people. This life of faithfulness will be like a lamp in a dark world. Some will come to it and some will hate it. That is why Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword.