The final part of our investigation will offer a detailed exegesis of Romans 3 based on the observations noted in the comparison table in the first article. This will continue our placement of Pauline thought firmly within Deuteronomistic history; particularly within the Davidic royal court history (including the relevant psalms) recounting the Bathsheba incident.
Romans 3:1-8
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”? — as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. Rom 3:1-8 (NKJV)
Of this passage, J. D. G. Dunn comments,
“Such an uninhibited attack on Jewish self-confidence in Israel’s privileged status before God raises problems which Paul cannot ignore—particularly in relation to Israel’s election and thus also to God’s faithfulness to the people he chose”.[1]
If the circumcision covenant and possession of the law did not grant the Jew a privileged position (in contrast to the Gentiles)—then what is the point in being Jewish? What advantage does election bring?
Paul answers that being Jewish has many advantages, not least that they received the oracles. The “oracles of God” refers to God’s self-revelation in the OT and particularly to the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7. It is essentially a continuation of the Davidic theme that Paul began in Rom 1:3-4 as an introduction to his epistle. Paul’s answer to the question of Jewish election is that it was not the law that made them elect, but the fact that God had chosen their race, particularly through the “seed of David after the flesh…..declared to be the son of God by the resurrection” (Rom 1:3-4).
In 2 Samuel 7 David sat before the ark and saw a vision of the risen Christ, a vision that he described in Psalm 110. It was the fact of the resurrection that declared him to be the Son of God: “Thou art my son; this day I have begotten thee”. At that point he became the universal Lord of the Gentiles also – “Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles for your inheritance” (Ps 2:7-8). So it was the covenant promises concerning the messiah that conferred special status to the Jews—not the law. But what if some Jews did not believe the covenant promises—if they demonstrated their unbelief by rejecting Christ? Does this nullify the covenant and make divine faithfulness ineffectual?
Paul’s response to this question was “Let God be true and everyman a liar” (Rom 3:4). Here, Paul has 2 Sam 7:28 in mind: “And now, O Lord God, You are God, and your words are true, and you have promised this goodness to your servant”. The unfaithfulness of some of the Jews could not undermine the faithfulness of God. God’s words are true and the Word made flesh is the expression of that truth. In contrast, all men are liars (Jew and Gentile), and human unbelief and law breaking only justifies divine judgement.
Paul turns to Psalm 51 in order to emphasize the point: “As it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged” (Rom 3:4). G. Herrick explains this quotation as follows,
The quotation from Ps 51:4 is taken almost verbatim from the Greek OT (Ps 50:6 LXX), with only minor modifications. In Psalm 51 David humbly cries out to God for forgiveness because of his sin with Bathsheba. The point of v. 4 is that David admits he is a sinner against God and therefore God is proved right when he speaks and justified when he judges. Paul says that even the king of Israel, David himself, who enjoyed an excellent overall reputation in first century Judaism, had to be judged for his sin. Thus God is true to bless and to punish no matter who the offending party…The Jew, then, who thinks that God is unjust and unfaithful when he makes promises to his people on the one hand, and then judges them for sin on the other, is sadly mistaken. In fact, this state of affairs actually proves that God is true and that men are liars.[2]
Herrick avers that Paul cites the LXX and the MT is different:[3]
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Ps 51:4 (KJV)
Against thee only have I sinned, and done evil before thee: that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Ps 51:4 (LXE)
Paul’s point is that when Christ was judged he overcame and was vindicated. Thus Paul’s argument is that when men judge God of unfaithfulness to the covenant or of unrighteousness, God would “overcome” and be proven right—justified and vindicated by upholding the covenant through David’s descendant, Jesus Christ; in this sense, God’s “overcoming” is the same as Jesus’ “overcoming”.
Romans 3:10-18
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. Rom 3:10-18 (KJV)
N. Longenecker observes,
“A recurring feature in Paul’s biblical quotations, and one that points up his midrashic heritage, is the Pharisaic practice of ‘pearl stringing’; that is, of bringing to bear on one point of an argument passages from various parts of the Bible in support of the argument and to demonstrate the unity of Scripture. This is most obviously done in Rom 3:10-18 (Ps 14:1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isa 59:7f; Ps 36:1)”.[4]
Paul has indeed quoted, like pearls on a string, a number of OT passages – they are all (with the exception of Isa 59:7f) related to David.
- Psalm 14 is almost identical to Psalm 53; the fact that Psalm 53 follows a psalm with an explicit historical title about Doeg the Edomite, and proceeds a psalm about Saul’s hunt for David the outlaw, suggests that this psalm also belongs to the same period in David’s life.
- The next quote is taken from Psalm 5, where the context stresses lack of faithfulness and flattery, probably reflecting David’s betrayal by his counsellor Ahithophel. This is significant as Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. After his sinful behaviour David became ill and lost authority – during this period Absalom fomented rebellion.
- Absalom’s rebellion is reflected in the next quote from Psalm 140 – the reference to the “serpent” is an allusion to Genesis 3 “Ye shall be as gods”. Glib promises of advancement and power for those whom Absalom sought to win over to his cause.
- The next quote is from Psalm 10 and this psalm stresses cursing…deceit…fraud…mischief…vanity (v. 7), all of which were true of Saul and his proxy Doeg the Edomite.
- The stream of citations from the Psalms is briefly interrupted by a quote from Isaiah 59:7-8. This is particularly interesting as the original context emphasises the shedding of innocent blood: “we grope for the wall……stumbling at noonday as in the night” (v.10). Paul has in mind his own experience, when he was blinded during his Damascus road conversion. The parallels with the nation are obvious, for although they had privileged status (like Paul, cf. Rom 11:1), they too were “blinded in part” (like Paul, cf. Rom 11:7) and persecuted the Lord’s anointed.
- Lastly, Paul concludes with Psalm 36, highlighting the defiant (fearless) attitude of the wicked. The Psalm continues (v.2) “… For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, even when his iniquity is found to be hateful.” (Darby). This parallels the Pauline accusation of boasting in the law (Ro, 2:18, 23; 3:27) even though they are law breakers (Rom 2:1) they still believe themselves to be untouchable (Rom 2:3). The liturgical setting for Psalm 36 may well have been the Day of Atonement (see vv. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9), fitting with Paul’s treatment of Jesus as a propitiation (Rom 3:25).
To sum up, this passage is based on the life of David (with the Isaiah exception), particularly notable is the cooperation between Jew and Gentile in persecuting, the “Lord’s anointed.” The persecutor Saul was a Benjamite (similarities with Saul of Tarsus) and his ally was an Edomite (like Herod). These parallels[5] would not have escaped the apostle Paul, neither did they escape the other apostles (Acts 4:25-28). This section summarises the universality of sin, by Jew and Gentile and the resistance to “Truth”, first by Jew and then by Gentile. Both persecuted the Lord’s anointed. Both are without excuse. One is condemned under the Law; the other is condemned outside the law.
N.T. Wright describes the situation as follows,
Israel was entrusted with the oracles of the creator god (3:2); that is, it was to be the messenger through whom the creator’s saving purpose would be carried to the world. What is the covenant god to do about the failure of his covenant people (3:2) to be faithful, on their part, to this covenant? Somehow, this god must be faithful nonetheless; and, unless the covenant itself is to be dissolved (which would evoke a very strong mh. ge,noito [“may it never happen”] from Paul) this means, logically, that there must somehow, after all, be an Israel that is faithful to the covenant, so that through this Israel the creator/covenant god can deal with the evil of the world, and with its consequences (i.e., wrath, as in 1:18ff). What is provided in 3:21-31 is just such a solution. “The works of Torah,” that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe. Rom 3:21-31 then expounds this revelation of the divine covenant faithfulness. The central emphasis of this passage, I suggest, lies not on the human faith/faithfulness, which, in place of works-of-Torah, becomes the badge of covenant membership, but on the faithfulness of the Messiah, Jesus, as the means through which the covenant faithfulness of the creator is enacted.[6]
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Rom 3:27 (NKJV)
N.T. Wright remarks that, “whatever we do with 3.27, it will never cease to be cryptic”.[7] The crux interpretum of this chapter is dia. poi,ou no,mou (“By what law?”).
We propose the phrase is taken from 2 Sam 7:19:
Whereas I was very little before thee, O Lord, my Lord, yet thou spokest concerning the house of thy servant for a long time to to come. And is this the law of man, O Lord, my Lord? 2 Sam 7:19 (LXE)
And yet this was insignificant in Your eyes, O Lord God, for You have spoken also of the house of Your servant concerning the distant future. And this is the custom of man, O Lord God. 2 Sam 7:19 (NASB)
The NASB taking a cue from the LXX has rendered the Hebrew, “the torah of Man” as “the custom of man” but removes the question mark. The NIV has “Is this your usual way of dealing with man?”; the NSRV renders it, “May this be the instruction for the people”, while the RSV appears to omit it completely. W.C. Kaiser paraphrases verse 19b “This is the charter by which humanity will be directed”.[8] However, these English versions remove the pun carried by the Hebrew word for “law” i.e. torah— the Law of Moses. The LXX preserves this pun, and if Paul quotes “By what law?” from here, we should retain “law”.
The Samuel passage highlights the Davidic Covenant, with its messianic implications, as the foundation for all subsequent working of God in history. This seems to be Paul’s point: this is the “law” upon which God works and not “the Law” of Moses.
So far we have suggested that the Pauline phrase is based on 2 Sam 7:19. If Paul did indeed base his challenge in Rom 3.27 on Samuel (as the Davidic theme in Romans 2 and 3 suggests) then Paul acts as our interpreter. Paul has distilled the phrase to its bare essence. The point is that David was not allowed to sit before the ark as he was not a priest or even a Levite—“Who am I, O Lord God? And what is my house, that you have brought me this far?” (2 Sam 7:18, NASB). So, the Law could not bring him into the presence of Yahweh (in fact the Law could only kill him for sitting in front of the ark); the Law could not grant him a vision of the risen Christ and the Law could not give him the superb covenant promise that he received (more importantly the Law could not forgive him after he sinned—only condemn and punish). The Law was very limited in what it could achieve. It became an instrument of wrath because it highlighted weak, sinful human nature. The answer to “By what law?” then is the law of faith in God’s promises to David. The parallel in Chronicles makes this clear:
And yet this was a small thing in thine eyes, O God; for thou hast also spoken of thy servant’s house for a great while to come, and hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree, O Lord God. 1 Chron 17:17
The exalted man….the one who ascended to sit in the presence of Yahweh…was Jesus Christ. David no longer saw according to the “law of sin and death” but according to “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom.8:8). Yes, David saw it, but he only understood it after his sin with Bathsheba.
Conclusion
This series of articles has opened up a range of fresh possibilities with regards to the New Perspective on Paul and, if nothing else, it highlights the relevance of the Old Testament in understanding the theology of Paul.
[1] [1] J. D. G. Dunn, “Letter to the Romans” in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (eds., G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, D. G. Reid; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 838-850 (845).
[2] G. Herrick, “Romans: The Gospel of God’s Righteousness” located online at http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=22 [cited May 4th 2008].
[3] It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss if and how far Paul is quoting the Hebrew Scriptures and using the LXX; this would require a technical discussion of what it is to “quote” scripture within the framework of divine inspiration using uninspired materials.
[4] R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), 115.
[5] Paul is at pains to explain the rejection of Esau the father of the Edomites in Rom 9:13.
[6] N. T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul” in Pauline Theology (eds., J. M. Bassler, D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson; 4 vols; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991-1997), 3:37-38.
[7] N. T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 131-150 (138).
[8] W. C. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David, the Charter for Humanity” in The Law and the Prophets (ed., J. H. Skilton; Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 311.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One