In chapter 2 Paul showed that God's judgment of all people rests on character rather than ceremony. He put the Jew on the same level as the Gentile regarding standing before God. Still God Himself made a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. In 3:1-8, Paul dealt with that apparent inconsistency. He did this so there would be no question in the minds of his Jewish audience that they were guilty before God and needed to trust in Jesus Christ. The passage affirms the continuing faithfulness of God to His covenant people but clarifies that His faithfulness in no way precludes His judging sinful Jews.
"In thus allowing the Roman Christians to listen in' on this dialogue, Paul warns his mainly Gentile audience that they should not interpret the leveling of distinctions between Jew and Gentile in terms of God's judgment and salvation as the canceling of all the privileges of Israel."79
3:1-2 Paul asked four rhetorical questions in this section (vv. 1-8), questions that could have been in the mind of a Jewish objector. Probably Paul was simple posing these questions and objections to himself to clarify his view for his readers. "Then what"(Gr. ti oun) appears in Romans to raise questions about what Paul has taught to advance his argument (cf. 3:9; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 19, 30; 11:7).
We could paraphrase the first question as follows. If Jews and Gentiles are both guilty before God, what advantage is there in being a Jew? Particularly what advantage is there in being circumcised? The Old Testament regarded being a Jew and circumcision as privileges.
There are many advantages to being a circumcised Jew. Paul only gave the most important one here (v. 2), but later he referred to others (9:4-5). The phrase "oracles of God"refers to special revelation. The word "oracles"(Gr. logia) stresses the fact that the Old Testament, and the Mosaic Law in particular, was the very utterance of God preserved and handed down by earlier generations (cf. Acts. 7:38; Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11).80"Entrusted"highlights Israel's responsibility to guard and to propagate what she had received as a treasure.
3:3-4 Paul's second question was this. God will not forsake His promises to bless the nation since some of the Israelites proved unfaithful will He? The objection Paul voiced calls attention to the promises God had given Israel in the Old Testament covenants. These too constituted an advantage for the Jews.
By referring to the unbelief of the Jews (v. 3) Paul was looking at the root of their unfaithfulness to God. Of the generation that received the law at Sinai, for example, only two adults proved faithful, Caleb and Joshua. Still God brought the whole nation into Canaan as He had promised, though the unbelieving generation died in the wilderness.
Paul agreed. God would remain "true"(true to His word, reliable, trustworthy) to bless Israel as He had promised (v. 4). God would even be faithful if everyone else proved unfaithful, not just if some proved unfaithful. Paul cited David's testimony to God's faithfulness after David's own unfaithfulness as historic support.
3:5-6 The third question connects with David's situation (v. 4). Since the Jews' failings set off God's righteousness more sharply by contrast, might not God deal more graciously with the Jews in His judgment of them? Surely He would not be unrighteous in failing to take that into consideration, would He?
Evidently Paul felt constrained to explain that he was "speaking in human terms"or "using a human argument"because he, representing an objector, had suggested that God was unjust. Paul did not want his readers to conclude that he really thought God was unfaithful to His own person and word. He was just saying that for the sake of the argument.
"It [the technical term I am speaking in human terms'] constitutes an apology for a statement which, but for the apology, would be too bold, almost blasphemous."81
Paul's answer was this. God will not show favoritism to the Jews even though by their unfaithfulness they glorify the faithfulness of God. If He did so, He would be partial and not qualified to sit in judgment on humankind.
3:7-8 The fourth question is very similar to the third. Perhaps Paul raised it as a response to his immediately preceding answer (v. 6). It clarifies the folly of the idea expressed in the third question. What an objector might really be saying in question three comes out in question four. If my lying, for example, glorifies God by showing Him to be the only perfectly truthful person, why does God punish me for lying? Paul had been stressing reality and priorities in chapter 2. This objection gets down to that level. If circumcision is of secondary importance compared to perfect obedience to God, is not sinning of secondary importance to glorifying God?
Paul's reply was that in spite of accusations to the contrary he had not taught that the end justifies the means. Circumcision was secondary, but it was not sinful. God will not overlook sin, though He will overlook uncircumcision (2:26-29). If anyone thinks that God should overlook his sinning because in a sense it glorifies God, that person deserves condemnation (v. 8). Paul implied that this objection is so absurd that it is not worth entertaining.
In verses 1-8 Paul raised and answered four objections that a Jew might have offered to squirm out from under the guilty verdict Paul had pronounced on him in chapter 2. The essential objections are as follows.
1. The Jews are a privileged people (vv. 1-2).
2. God will remain faithful to the Jews despite their unfaithfulness to Him (vv. 3-4).
3. God will be merciful since the Jews' failings have magnified God's righteousness.
4. God will overlook the Jews' sins since they contribute to the glory of God.
Self-righteous people still raise these objections. Some people assume that because God has blessed them He will not condemn them. Some believe the character of God prohibits His condemning them. Some think that even though they have sinned God will be merciful and not condemn them. Some feel that since everything we do glorifies God in some way God would be unjust to condemn them.
"Thousands of so-called church-members' not only have never been brought under real conviction of sin and guilt and personal danger, but rise in anger like the Jews of Paul's day when one preaches their danger directly to them!"82
