Objection 3: God’s Justice Impugned
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”
But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! Romans 3:1-8
Paul’s method for handling objections to what he’s teaching takes the form of a ‘diatribe,’ where a teacher would set up an imaginary conversation with his critics or students and where they respond with objections (usually in question form) and the teacher answers them. Paul has already used this style in 2:1ff in answering the moraliser and in 2:17ff in answering the Jew. Paul is probably reconstructing actual arguments thrown at him in synagogue evangelism.
Just prior to the passage before us Paul has written that there is no fundamental difference between Jews and Gentiles and that the law and circumcision guaranteed neither Jewish immunity from the judgement of God nor Jewish identity as the people of God. This seemed to call into question God’s covenant, promises and character. It prompted four distinct but related objections. Firstly, that Paul’s teaching undermined God’s covenant (3:1,2). Secondly, that Paul’s teaching nullified God’s faithfulness (3:3)
Objection (3) Paul’s teaching impugns God’s justice (3:5,6)
The reference to God as Judge in David’s psalm quoted in 3:4 could well have led Paul to mention His justice, which is displayed in His judgements. In this case the supposed objector is making the point that ‘our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly.’ The more unrighteous the criminal is, the more righteous the judge appears. Our unrighteousness benefits God because it displays His character all the more brightly. If this is so, ‘what shall we say?’ Should we conclude that ‘God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?’ God‘s wrath is certainly coming on the Gentiles (1:18) and on the critical moralisers (2:5) but would He bring it on the Jews? How could He do that when their sin makes Him look especially righteous? Even as he writes this Paul seems to feel embarrassed and adds apologetically in parenthesis ‘(I am using a human argument.)’
Another categorical denial: ‘Certainly not!’ Then Paul asks a counter-question: if He really was unjust, ‘how could God judge the world?’ Paul takes it as axiomatic that God is the universal Judge and that, therefore, as Abraham said, the Judge of all the earth will do right (Genesis 18:25). To question God’s justice in even the slightest way diminishes His competence to judge which no Jewish reader could even contemplate – all of which shows the absurdity of the objection.
God will judge the world and He will judge it in righteousness (Psalm 98:9; Acts 17:31). God is the moral governor of the universe, the judge of all the earth. How could He ever fulfil such a function and not deal righteously with sin? Impossible.