Synopsis on Romans (Part 2 - Chapter 3)

I have decided to not merely do separate posts on each section I divide Romans into because it would cause me to miss over too many issues in certain chapters or I would have to write much longer posts (my length is usually fairly long as it is). Instead, it will be done more by ear, and I may do one chapter in a certain post or I may do more than one in another post.


In Romans 2, Paul proclaims that being a Jew and having part in the Jewish system (the Law, circumcision, etc.) does not mean that judgment will be partial to the Jews, but instead each man will be judged by what they know and what people know, whether Jews or Gentiles, is not very different. This leads the hypothetical Jew to ask what benefit was there to being a Jew and having circumcision (which signifies being in covenant with God), as Paul writes in 3:1. Paul responds that there were many. However, he mentions only one at the time, that is, that they had the oracles of God. They were vehicles of God's speaking to the world. Another way of putting it is that they were God's prophetic nation.

However, this would not satisfy the objections of the hypothetical Jew. God had made a promise that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would flourish. God was to be faithful towards their children, and yet some did not trust in God. Does God cease to be a faithful God who is true to His word because of the lack of trust that some of the Israelites had? In other words, is God breaking His promise? Paul's answer is no. Even if everyone lies, God is going to be found to be truthful. Furthermore, the unrighteousness of humanity goes on to serve to show that God is righteous.

That leads up to the next hypothetical objection. If humanity's unrighteousness displays that God is righteous, is God then unrighteous? Is God an accomplice or a partaker in that unrighteousness? Paul's answer is not like a juridical argument that shows specifically how God is not an accomplice, but rather he simply states that God must be righteous, or otherwise there can not be way that He could possibly judge the world, since He Himself would be unrighteous. Paul logically shows that God is not unrighteous, but he doesn't show how God is cleared, as if he feels like there is no need to clear God.

One matter of exegesis in verse 5. There Paul refers to the righteousness of God, but here the context is clearly in reference to God's own nature. Should we not conclude that every usage of this phrase in Romans refers to God's own character, instead of more specifically the character that we are to have in this life? Not necessarily. To dive a little bit into the Greek, in 3:5 the word order has God first, whereas in the other passages, righteousness is mentioned first. This word order serves to show the emphasis that Paul is given to the concept. In other passages where righteousness is mentioned first, Paul is concern about the ethical realm. However, in 3:5 Paul is concern about more about the vindication of God Himself. Furthermore though, this usage, though a bit fluid, never has a drastically different meaning in its different usages, but rather it only has different emphases.

Moving on further, Paul presents yet another hypothetical objection. If a person's unrighteousness shows the very nature of God and His justice, something good comes from of it. Why then does God still judge when something good comes from it? The objection is taken further to apparently be a justification for wickedness in saying that a person should sin so that God might be glorified. Paul does not directly debunk this claim, but allows its foolishness that is apparent to be its own down fall while he simply states that God's condemnation of that person is just (irregardless of what good may come from it).

Now all that Paul has stated applies to the Israelites. As the prophets (the oracles) repeatedly make witness to, they too fell under God's judgment. Or in other words, even though God made a promise to be faithful to the descendants of Israel (in which He has still kept the promise, which Romans 9 gets into), the judgment of the unrighteous ones among the Israelites displays God's glory and righteousness as well. It serves to teach the other Jews how one should live by their example of disobedience (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 for a similar idea).

Considering that the Israelites had examples in their past that show God's judgment and that they had the oracles of God to teach them, the hypothetical Jew might conclude that they were better morally that the Gentiles, since they had a plethora of ethical teachings and examples to guide them. However, Paul's answer is that both Jew and Greeks have fallen into sin. He goes on to show this by compiling a set of quotations from Psalms and Isaiah in 3:10-18. These books spoke to those under the Law, and therefore it was directed to the Israelites and showed that they too were guilty of sin.

One other point to make here though. These verses are commonly taken here as if Paul's purpose here is to establish the universal nature of humanity (especially for both unbeliever and believer). That is not his purpose though. His purpose is to show that the Law spoke against the Israelites and their sinfulness. Therefore, we can not draw conclusions on the nature of humanity based upon Paul's usage of these quotations, but rather we can only derive conclusions on them from the context in which they came from. Of course one must allow for literary techniques, such as hyperbole, to be used, especially in the Psalms. However, since human nature and exegesis of Psalms is beyond the scope of this post, I will leave it at that other than to reemphasize that Paul is not trying to establish in and of itself a universal teaching on the nature of humanity, but only to show that the Jews too were guilty.

At this point then, in verse 3:20, Paul explains why the Israelites were not better ethically than the Gentiles. The reason is, simply enough, that the performing of the works of the Law in and of themselves makes no one righteous before God. The reason is because the Law only teaches about sin, but it does not teach us everything to do that is right. In other words, it is not a perfect, all-encompassing moral code that teaches everything there is about righteousness. There are "gaps" in its teaching (although I would say there are certain reasons for those "gaps," but one can get some of my thoughts on that here, although I have modified my views a bit since then). One could do everything it says and that by itself would not make a person righteous before God (justified).

Once again, when we see the context, justification is to be taken as judicial, but with a regard for the ethical status of the person. To be justified is to be righteous in character in God's eyes. Keep in mind that 1-19 has the theme of unrighteous acts and Paul's shows that the Israelites were guilty of being heinous sinners. Therefore, when Paul explains why, we must see justification with some regard for ethical matters, or Paul statement makes no sense. There is more to say about the nature of justification, but I will save that for chapter 4 (although one can view my exegesis on Romans 3 and 4 to know what I say about justification in chapter 4).

Now, if the Law can not justify because it only teaches about sin, but not a comprehensive teaching on righteousness, then in what manner of life must a person follow in order to be seen as righteous by God? Or, how can we have that complete teaching on righteousness? That is the issue Paul addresses in 3:21-26. But before I go further, I have a couple points of translation to make.

First off, in regards to faith and where it should be translated as "faith in Christ," "the faith of Christ," or "the faithfulness of Christ," I believe the second option is the proper translation. I will not go into detail as to why, but I will say in my study of the phrase and the context of its usages, I find it only makes sense if we render it "the faith of Christ." I can go into detail behind my rationale for that (although I give a bit in my exegesis of Romans 3-4), but I will reserve that for later explanation if it is needed. Secondly, in Romans 3:25 I am of the opinion that the proper translation would be "God publicly displayed Him through faith as a mercy seat by His blood." Once again, I can explain my rationale for that, but at a later time in another post or in the comments section.

Now in Romans 3:21, we should see the contrast between the knowledge of sin that comes by the Law in verse 20, and the righteousness of God being disclosed (or rather being given as knowledge to others). What Paul is bringing about then is something that reveals what righteousness truly is. How then is this righteousness revealed? Through the faith of Jesus Christ. Recall back to Romans 1:17 where it is said that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith. Paul is now building upon that and established that the moral character that God has that we too are to have is revealed in the trust that Jesus had in God in His time on the earth. By His trust, He endured the sin of others to the point of death while never fighting back. It would require great faith in the resurrection for Him to allow Himself to be captured by the Father's will and then to be able to endure the temptation that being insulted might in turn cost. In other words, Jesus' trust in God enabled Him to totally reject Himself for the will of the Father.

Now, Paul goes on to say it is revealed to all who believe. He is establishing that regardless of Jew or Gentile, the righteousness of God is for everyone (as opposed to the Law of Moses itself which was purposed only for Jews and Jewish converts). The reason it is available for all is because all have fallen short of the glory of God and need knowledge of this righteousness. It was necessary for the Jew too because the Law was obviously not making Israelites holy and obedient to God. I will also say more on the "glory of God" in a moment.

Those who believe as spoken of in verse 22 are justified by the grace that is in the redemption of Jesus Christ. Paul says two things in this. By having the righteousness of God revealed through the faith of Christ, they too could be justified by God by trusting in God also. But it goes further than this to say that it was possible for them through the redemption (the freedom) in Jesus Christ. In other words, justification is merely obtained by trying to mimic Jesus Christ and His trust in God, but it is only possible through a change of life that is had in Jesus Christ (which is in part through His death, as Paul establishes in Romans 5, 6, and 8). By the redemption, we are enabled to follow through in the pattern that Jesus has set forth for us.

Now Paul in verse 25 goes on to explain what he has spoken of in 21-24. There are a few things to take note of.

First off, he speaks of Jesus as a mercy seat. In the Old Testament, the mercy seat was the place where atonement was made. But furthermore, it was the place where the cloud of God (what might also be termed the presence or the glory of God) would appear. So, in referring to Jesus as the mercy seat, Paul says that he both is an atonement, but the very place where the presence of God is. So by being the very presence of God (or as Hebrews puts it, the exact representation), He is capable of revealing the type of righteousness that God has.

Secondly, Jesus is said to be revealed publicly. This is significant because the holy of holies, in which the mercy seat was placed, was not to be entered by just anyone but only by the high priest AFTER he had atoned for his own sins. So in the Old Testament, the mercy seat was private, but in Romans the mercy seat of Jesus Christ is publicly shown. Furthermore, God tolerated the sins of the people whom should not at all enter into the presence of God in the mercy seat. Beforehand, all people had fallen short of the mark necessary to enter into the presence of God (or the glory of God). But now God tolerates it (not forgives it though there) in order that He may show His righteousness that He has that we are to live by in this life. Or as verse 26 explains it, in order that God might be righteous and "the one who justifies those who have the faith of Christ." In order for God to continue to be righteous and accept the sinners, He needs to make it possible for humanity to live righteously (which needs both knowledge and the spiritual freedom to do so). In order for humanity to reach that level, they must know the standard they are to follow, which is revealed in Christ Jesus.

Finally, note that it is says that Jesus was publicly demonstrated through faith. This may be a bit awkward if this refers specifically to our faith being the means of public demonstration. However, if it is Christ's faith, it makes more sense for faith to be the means of public demonstration in blood, as His truth in God allowed Him to go upon the cross.

Now this brings us to the hypothetical objections again. The first question asks where is the place for boasting in all this. The meaning is, how can we claim that we have worked up to the point where we are justified. But Paul states this is excluded and that it is excluded by the law of faith. Now Paul doesn't deny the importance of works here, but rather begins to establish that a trust is the foundation upon which justification may be had initially (I will build more upon that in chapter 4 though) and that works themselves do not bring us up to the level that we may be justified (that is not to say anything about the roles of works after justification has been obtained).

Now the hypothetical Jewish objector wondered if the exclusion of boasting was by the a law of works, which in context is in reference to the works of the Law (of Moses). As Paul states, it is by a law based upon faith (note that law and righteousness have a natural relation to each other). The reason is because the works of the Law can not hope to change a person that they might become justified. And why is this? Because God is God of both Jews and Gentiles and so that both groups may be justified.

This leads us to our final objection in chapter 3. The hypothetical Jewish objector might suppose that Paul was denying the Law, saying that it is now nullified because of this doctrine about faith. Perhaps in mind here is the words of Jesus here in Matthew 5:17-18. What Paul says simply is that is not the case. It remains established. It is not of no value. It is not nullified. How this is the case Paul does not address much, but what little he does is in Romans 8 (which we will address when we get there).

Now, for my next post, chapter 4.