Paul continues his argument concerning circumcision and Jewishness. It’s important to see this as a central theme to the letter so that chapters 9-11 are not a mere parenthesis between the doctrine and the practice, a little detour but are central to the conclusion of his argument. Paul has said that it is circumcision of the heart not the genitals that matters. So, then has there been any benefit to being circumcised and therefore being Jewish, or was it just a waste of everyone’s time (v1)? Paul’s emphatic response is that there has been “much in every way”, there has been definite benefit. The first benefit is that being part of God’s people, marked out by the sign of circumcision is that you’ve been given God’s Word, his revelation. It has been entrusted to you. Note that this suggests already that there is meant to be a responsibility tat comes with this stewardship (v2).
Paul does not follow on with a second point but instead turns to an implication. Chapter 2 has highlighted hypocrisy amongst God’s people and that has led to the question of benefit. Does that cause a problem for God? Has his project failed (v3). Paul answers “no”, the phrase μὴ γένοιτο· again has an emphatic sense of “surely not”. Human unfaithfulness cannot thwart or compromise God’s faithfulness. His character is not contaminated by ours. In fact, our failing serves to highlight his steadfast trustworthiness as brought out by the quote from Psalm 51:4, God is proven true and vindicated. In the Psalm’s context, David recognises that he is a sinner and confesses that his offence is against God. Hence our unfaithfulness proves that God has a case against us, we are the covenant breakers, it is not God who turns his back on us or lets us down (v4).
However, this seems to raise a problem. God benefits from our unrighteousness because it highlights his righteousness. So, then is God unfair to be angry at us? Surely not says Paul because if God were unjust then he would not be competent to judge. Remember that at this stage, he is not setting out a philosophical apologetic, although an apologetic of suffering and God’s justice (theodicy) through Paul’s argument in Romans. What he does here is to set out what the agreed terms of reference are. He is writing to people that agree concerning God’s character that he is a holy, righteous, just, good God and that he is just when he judges the world for their unbelief and sin. On that basis then, they have to accept that his verdict in regards to them specifically is just (v5-6).
Paul repeats or rather rephrases the question as prepares to deal with it at length. If God is exalted through my lie, how can I still be considered a sinner? Am I not fulfilling his will? Furthermore, doesn’t that mean that we can do what we please, even sin more because God benefits. Some people have apparently claimed that this is in fact what Paul’s gospel of grace means. There’s nothing new under the sun! Paul insists that their claism are false and they are judged and condemned for their slander.
Faithroots 