Romans 3:5-8 Romans: Romans 3:5-God is Justified in Exercising His Righteous Indignation upon Jewish Unrighteousness In Romans 3:5, Paul poses another question to the unsaved Jew that rejects the idea that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation against Jewish unbelievers since their unrighteousness makes conspicuous God’s righteousness. Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “But ” is the “adversative” use of the conjunction de ( deV) (deh), which introduces another set of questions that anticipate another objection of Paul’s opponents, the Judaizers that are in response to his statement in Romans 3:4. In Romans 3:3-4, Paul teaches that Jewish unfaithfulness does not render inoperative God’s faithfulness to Israel and that God will be vindicated when He judges unsaved mankind. In Romans 3:5, Paul addresses another objection of the Judaizers as to whether or not God is justified in exercising His righteous indignation towards the unsaved Jews when their unrighteousness magnifies the righteousness of God. He addresses this objection since it could be implied from Romans 3:3-4 that if the unrighteousness of unregenerate Jews serves to demonstrate the righteousness of God, is not God unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness? Robert Mounce commenting on Romans 3:5-6, writes, “It could be implied from verses 3-4 that the unrighteousness of unbelieving Jews serves to magnify the righteousness of God. In that case, would it not be unjust of God to punish the Jew? ‘What shall we say?’ asked Paul. He answered his own question with a second question, this time anticipating a negative response (‘God would not be unjust in bringing his wrath on us would He?’). The answer (coming in verse 6) would be strong, Certainly not! Just before that, however, Paul inserted ‘a parenthetic apology for the blasphemous thought of God as unjust.’ The notion that unrighteous conduct could ever serve to enhance the righteous character of God is strictly a ‘human argument.’ For Jews to reason in this way would have been for them to deny a basic truth they held to be inviolable, namely, that ‘God [will] judge the world’ (cf. Gen. 18:25; Ps. 96:13; Isa. 66:16; Joel 3:12). If punishment on God’s part implied injustice, then God, who by definition is just, could not serve as the eschatological judge of all humans. To put it in the current idiom, we 2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1 cannot have it both ways.” (The New American Commentary, volume 27, Romans, pages 94-95; Broadman and Holman Publishers). Therefore, we will translate the conjunction de , “ but .” Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “If ” is the conditional particle ei ( ei)) (i), which introduces the protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The first class condition is conveyed “explicitly” with the conditional particle ei , “ if ” and the indicative mood of the verb sunistemi , “ demonstrates ” in order to introduce the protasis. The apodasis is introduced implicitly without a structural marker and appears in the rhetorical question ti eroumen me adikos ho theos ho epipheron ten orgen , “what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He ?” In Romans 3:5, the basic relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is “evidence-inference.” The evidence is that Jewish unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God and Paul is inferring from this evidence. The inference is that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation against unrighteous Jews. The rhetorical question rejects this idea as well as the negative particle me in the emphatic position of the apodasis of Romans 3:5 and the statement me genoito , “ may it never be !” in Romans 3:6. Paul is making an induction about the implications that this piece of evidence suggests in order to refute his opponents, the Judaizers who claimed He taught that God had permanently rejected the nation of Israel for their rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah and thus implying that God was unfaithful to His promises. As we have noted earlier in our studies of the book of Romans, the idea behind the first class condition is not “since” but rather, “if-and let us assume for the sake of argument, then...” The use of the first class condition is a debater’s technique and is used as a tool of persuasion. Paul is anticipating the objection of his Jewish opponents in order that he might emphatically refute it. Their argument would be that if Jewish unrighteousness magnifies the righteousness of God, is God then, justified in exercising His righteous indignation towards them. We will translate the conditional particle ei , “ if-and let us assume for the sake of argument, then …” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument…then .” “Our ” is the genitive 1 st person plural form of the personal pronoun hemeis (h(mei~$ ), which is hemon ( h(mw~n ), which is used by Paul in order to identify himself with his opponents, the Judaizers, in order to refute his objection. 2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2 Of course, Paul is not a Jewish unbeliever but rather he employs debater’s technique by assuming the position of the self-righteous Jewish unbeliever in order to destroy that position. In other words, he sets up a straw man in order that he might knock him over. The personal pronoun hemeis functions as a “possessive” genitive indicating that this unrighteousness “belongs to” the unsaved Jew. “Unrighteousness ” is the articular nominative feminine singular form of the noun adikia ( a)dikiva ) (ad-ee-kee-ah), which is the antithesis in meaning to the noun dikaiosune ( dikaiosuvnh ), “righteousness,” which is a general term for “virtue” and “integrity” of character, thus, adikia is the state of possessing no virtue or integrity. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines “integrity”: (1) Soundness of and adherence to moral principle and character; uprightness; honesty (2) The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished (3) A sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines “virtue”: (1) Moral excellence; goodness; righteousness (2) Conformity of one’s life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness, rectitude. Therefore, in Romans 3:5, the noun adikia refers to the unsaved Jew as having “no” integrity in the sense that his character is “not” sound, and does “not” adhere to the will of God, and is “not” upright, honest, perfectly whole, is “diminished,” and “unsound,” “impaired” and in a “bad” condition. In context, the noun adikia describes the unsaved Jew as having “no” virtue in the sense that he has “no” moral excellence, “no” goodness, and his conduct does “not” conform to the will of God. In Romans chapter two, Paul described the unrighteousness of the Jew in detail. First of all, they committed the same sins that the unsaved Gentiles committed according to Romans 1:28-2:1. Romans 1:28-2:1, “Furthermore, just as, they never approved of God for the purpose of retaining (Him) in the realm of knowledge, God, as an eternal spiritual truth, gave them over to a disapproved intellect in order to habitually do improper things with the result that they have been consumed with each and every kind of unrighteousness, evil, greed, malice, extensively engaged in envy, murder, strife, deception, evil dispositions, scandals, slanders, God-haters, violent insolents antagonists, arrogant, loud arrogant boasters, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, stupid, contract breakers, unaffectionate with loved ones, unmerciful who indeed by virtue of their evil character, although, they as an eternal spiritual truth know experientially the righteous regulation originating with God, namely, that those who as a lifestyle practice such things are as an eternal spiritual truth worthy, namely, 2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 3 of death, they not only as a lifestyle do the same things but also, they as an eternal spiritual truth applaud those who as a lifestyle practice them. For this very reason, you are, as an eternal spiritual truth, without excuse O man, each and everyone of you without exception who as a lifestyle judge as guilty for by means of that which you as a lifestyle judge as guilty the other person, you, as an eternal spiritual truth condemn yourself for you, who as a lifestyle judge as guilty, make it a habit to practice the same things.” Romans 2:4-5 teaches that they held in contempt God’s infinite kindness, tolerance and patience towards them, which was meant to lead them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and were thus obstinate and unrepentant. Romans 2:2-5, “Now, we know for certain that God’s judgment is, as an eternal spiritual truth according to truth, against those who as a lifestyle practice such things. But, do you continue to presume this that you will escape God’s judgment, O man, when you, who as a lifestyle, judge as guilty those, who as a lifestyle, practice such things and you do, as a lifestyle, the very same things? Or do you continue to hold in contempt His infinite kindness and tolerance and patience, habitually ignoring the fact that the kindness originating from God’s character and nature is, as an eternal spiritual truth, leading you to repentance? But according to your obstinacy and unrepentant heart, you are, as an eternal spiritual truth, storing up for yourselves righteous indignation on a day characterized by righteous indignation, yes, when the righteous judgment executed by God is revealed.” The unsaved Jews failed to keep perfectly the Mosaic Law and were merely hearers of the Law according to Romans 2:12-13.