Romans 3.5-8: Predestination Lurks Beneath

Romans 3.5-8

5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

5 ει δε η αδικια ημων θεου δικαιοσυνην συνιστησιν τι ερουμεν μη αδικος ο θεος ο επιφερων την οργην κατα ανθρωπον λεγω 6 μη γενοιτο επει πως κρινει ο θεος τον κοσμον 7 ει δε η αληθεια του θεου εν τω εμω ψευσματι επερισσευσεν εις την δοξαν αυτου τι ετι καγω ως αμαρτωλος κρινομαι 8και μη καθως βλασφημουμεθα [και] καθως φασιν τινες ημας λεγειν οτι ποιησωμεν τα κακα ινα ελθη τα αγαθα ων το κριμα ενδικον εστιν

Observations.

1. Two questions come to the fore as possible-likely abuses of Romans 3.1-4: that the unbelief and infidelity of humans (many) being unable, but rather, serving to advance, the righteousness of God.

a. 5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say?

b. 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

2. Human “unrighteousness” and the “righteousness of God” are brought into close relationship. “Serves to show” (συνιστησιν) indicates: “put together,” “make good by argument,””prove,” “establish.” This question still obtains and applies in discussions about predestination and election.

3. Murray catches the sense: “For it is plausible and apparently inevitable logic to say that God cannot justly inflict punishment upon the action of which is instrumental in the more glorious display of the truth and righteousness which are his glory.” (96)

4. It is evident that some Jews (Jewish Christians?) and other anti-predestinarians (Gentile Christians?) didn’t like Paul’s arguments about predestination (supra vide 3.1-4). No doubt, Paul had heard these raucous calumnies before.

5. Murray puts the objection another way: “The inference proposed in verse 8 is that if the truth of God, that is to say, his faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, has been more abundantly exemplified by man’s unbelief and contradiction and God thereby glorified, then the agent of this unbelief cannot any longer be regarded as a sinner.”

Correlation:

1. History of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, as unities, yet in its diverse forms: Romanism, Arminianism, Tractarianism, modern day evangelicalism.

2. Study of denominational proclivities. Modern Anglicans, e.g. ACNA, could care less about the question; they would like it to go away. Article XVII is not a matter of concern. We know that Anglican Evangelicals have long associated themselves with Wesleyans. Methodists, Pentecostals and other enthusiasts, Baptists, and the mainline liberals.

Interpretation:

Paul is placing two common objections to predestination before his reader.

To be continued.