Comentários bíblicos

A. RABBINIC DOCTRINES; MERIT, PRIVILEGE, &c. (Cch. 2, 3)

The following extracts from the Talmud are from the late Dr A. M Caul’s Old Paths. The original Rabbinic, as well as the reference, is there given in each case.

(On the Talmud as evidence to opinion in St Paul’s day, see just below, Appendix B.)

“Every one of the children of men has merits and sins. If his merits exceed his sins, he is righteous. If his sins exceed his merits, he is wicked. If they be half and half, he is an intermediate person, בינוני.” p. 125.—“Circumcision is equivalent to all the commandments that are in the Law.” p. 230.—“The wise men have said, that Abraham our father sits at the door of hell (Gehinnom), and does not suffer any one that is circumcised to be cast into it.” p. 229.—“Amongst all the commandments, there is not one that is equivalent to the study of the Law. Whereas the study of the Law is equivalent to all the commandments; for study leads to practice. Therefore, study always goes before good deeds”. p. 131.—“What is a sojourning proselyte? A Gentile, who has taken upon himself the commandments given to the sons of Noah, but is not circumcised nor baptized. Such a one is received, and is of the pious of the nations of the world. And why is he called a sojourner? Because it is lawful for us to let him dwell among us in the land of Israel.… But a sojourning proselyte is not received except during the celebration of the year of jubilee” (p. 34); i.e., during one year in fifty. But elsewhere the Talmud says that there has been no jubilee since the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (p. 35). Full proselytism is thus the only real hope for a Gentile.—“What constitutes a Stranger (i.e. a full proselyte)? Sacrifice, circumcision, and baptism. At the present time, when there is no sacrifice, circumcision and baptism are necessary; and when the Temple is rebuilt, he must bring a sacrifice. A Ger (Stranger) is not a Ger until he is both circumcised and baptized.” p. 154.

These extracts may aid us, in some measure, in estimating the kind of prejudice against which St Paul aims in Romans 2 &c.

The work from which the extracts are taken, The Old Paths, (נתיבות צולס), is itself no mean illustration of the prophecies of Romans 11. It was originally a serial, circulated (1836–7) among the Jews of London, as “a comparison of Modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the Prophets;” and it is a deeply earnest while most temperate appeal by a Gentile Messianist to Jews.

Ch. Romans 3:1-2. The advantage of the Jew: Revelation

1. What advantage] Lit. what excess, i. e. of privilege.

St Paul here corrects, though only in passing, the possible inference from the previous passage that circumcision was valueless in all respects, and that the Jew as such had nothing special to thank God for. It is remarkable that his chief reply to such a thought lies in the fact that the Old Covenant secured the immense practical benefit of Revelation. (Cp. Psalm 103:7.) This correction is aside from the main argument of this part of the Epistle, in which St Paul aims to prove the equality of Jew and Gentile not in respect of privilege but in respect of reality of guilt, and of need of a Divine justification. Yet even here the main argument is not forgotten: the gift of Scripture brings the responsibility of the Jew into the fullest light. His “advantage” is his accusation.

2. every way] For a comment see Romans 9:4-5; part of an argument of which this verse may be regarded as the germ or first suggestion.

chiefly] Lit. first. Perhaps this is the first step in an enumeration which is not carried on. Cp. Romans 1:8. But the rendering “chiefly” is quite possible and natural.

unto them were committed] Lit. they were trusted with; for their own benefit in the first place, and then as the “keepers of Holy Writ” for the world—for enquirers and proselytes under the Old Covenant, and for the universal Church under the New.

the oracles] the utterances. Same word as Acts 8:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11. The Gr. word is occasionally used in the LXX. for ordinary human utterances; e.g. Psalms 19 (LXX. 18):14: “the words of my mouth.” The context of the passages of N. T. just quoted leaves no doubt that it refers here to the utterances of God through the prophets of the Old Covenant; in short, to the O. T. Scriptures. The Apostle’s testimony to the unique dignity of the Scripture Revelation could not be stronger. And so when he elsewhere contrasts “letter” and “spirit,” his meaning, whatever it is, is not to diminish the Divine authority of the written “oracles.”

3. For what] Here a formula of argument, introducing an objection.

if some] A euphemism, most natural in the words of a supposed Jewish Opponent. As a fact, it was the “some” who believed, the many who did not; as of old at Kadesh-barnea. (Numbers 13, 14.)

the faith of God] i.e. His good faith, faithfulness to His promise. The same Gr. word appears with the meaning “faithfulness” in e.g. Galatians 5:22 (where E. V. has “faith”), Titus 2:10, and perhaps 1 Timothy 4:12.—See Appendix C.

3–8. The Divine Judge will not connive at sin

3–8. For what if some, &c.] Romans 3:3-8 form a passage of much difficulty in detail, though clear as a whole. The difficulty results partly from a doubt as to where the Opponent speaks, and partly from the Apostle’s own thought modifying the words put into the Opponent’s mouth. It will be best to waive a minute discussion of interpretations, and at once to give our own in the shape of a paraphrase.

Romans 3:3. (The Jewish Opponent). “You say the Jew has advantage. He has indeed: God’s veracity (truth, faithfulness) is pledged to give him eternal life. For can we think that the unfaithfulness of some Jews to God annuls His faithfulness to the race? Will He fail in His purpose?”

Romans 3:4. (The Apostle.) “God forbid! Rather should we admit any charge of untruth against man, than the least against God. So David saw, and wrote, in his confession of his own sin; his main thought was (Psalm 51:4) that he would even own the very worst against himself, that God might be seen to punish him justly.”

Romans 3:5. (The Opponent.) “But hear me further. The sinful unbelief of some Jews, as you own, cannot change His purpose. May I not say more? does it not, by bringing His faithfulness into contrast, glorify Him? and if so, will He punish it? What say you of His justice or injustice in visiting even wicked Jews with wrath?”

Romans 3:6-8. (The Apostle.) “I say, God forbid the thought that He will not punish them. For, on such a principle, how shall God be the universal Judge at all? I too, be I Jew or Gentile, might say as well as you, ‘I choose to tell a lie; somehow or other this will illustrate God’s truth, e.g. by contrast; therefore I ought to be acquitted; I ought to be allowed to act on the principle of evil for the sake of good;’—a principle with which we Christians are charged, but which we utterly condemn.”

We now remark on details.

4. God forbid] Lit. may it not be; be it not; and so always where the words “God forbid” occur in the Eng. N. T.—The Apostle more than accepts the opponent’s position, but not in his sense. God’s promise should indeed stand; the mere thought of a failure there is shocking. But that promise had never said that impenitent individuals of the chosen race should be safe from doom.

let God be true, &c.] Q. d., “If there is failure, it is safer and truer to believe the truest man false, than ‘God who cannot lie.’ ”—It is a profound characteristic of all Scripture to be always on the side of God. In this lies one pregnant evidence, to those who will think it out, of the “Supernatural Origin of the Bible.”

that thou mightest, &c.] The Gr. words are verbatim the LXX. of Psalms 51 (LXX. 50):4. The lit. Hebrew is exactly as E. V. there, “clear when thou judgest;” and probably the Gr. of LXX. and of St Paul here is really the same, or nearly so, in effect: “clear when thou impleadest; when thou procurest judgment.” Same word as “go to law,” 1 Corinthians 6:1. On the special force of this thought in Psalms 51 see paraphrase above.

5. unrighteousness … righteousness] General terms, but implying the special forms of unbelief and fidelity. Man’s mistrust is awfully unjust to God; God’s fidelity to His promise is just to Himself and His holiness.—See below on Romans 3:21 for the exceptional meaning here of “the Righteousness of God[33].”

[33] It is possible, however, that the meaning assigned to the phrase in note on Romans 1:17, may be the meaning even here: q.d., “What if our sin should illustrate (by contrast or otherwise) God’s Way of Acceptance?”

Is God unrighteous, &c.?] This question (the Opponent’s) is a serious grammatical difficulty in the Gr. The interrogative particle is that which regularly expects the answer “No.” But the turn of this argument suggests a question (from the Opponent) expecting “Yes.” (The above use of the particle in question is not quite invariable in Gr., but it holds in all other cases in St Paul.) To us it seems that the solution is as follows: The Apostle gives the Opponent’s question, but jealousy for God’s honour compels him to modify it by his own intense sense of the Divine righteousness. The Opponent demands the answer “Yes;” St Paul is forced to make him, grammatically, demand the answer “No.” Instead of his would-be “Is not God unrighteous, &c.?” it thus stands, “Is God unrighteous, &c.?”—in which at most the question is left, verbally, open.

taketh vengeance] Lit. inflicteth the wrath; i.e. the wrath merited by the special sin; the wrath which had fallen on Israel.

I speak as a man] i.e. “on merely human principles, from mere man’s point of view.” This serious questioning about right and wrong in the Eternal and His acts is, in St Paul’s view, “speaking as man.” In the light of the Holy Spirit’s teaching it is impossible, unless (as here) by way of a mere argumentative formula.

6. how shall God judge the world?] The emphasis is on “judge,” not on “world.” It is needless to suppose the word “world” here to stand in opposition to the Jewish people. The point of the question is, that if God could not righteously punish sin when sin illustrated His glory, not only would He not punish those particular sins, but He would (as to principle) entirely abdicate His office as “Judge of all the earth.” All sin, in one respect or another, illustrates His glory, if only as a black contrast: therefore, in no case would punishment be just!—On the truth that the Lord is the “Judge of all” the Apostle falls back as on a “first ground.”

7. For if, &c.] Here St Paul takes up the Opponent on his own ground; speaking as a human being whose sin (e.g. a falsehood) serves to make God’s truth “abound to His glory;” i.e. be more largely manifest in a way to win Him fresh praise:—in such a case is not Paul, is not A, B, or C, equally entitled with the Jewish opponent to be excused penalty?—In the Gr. of the clause “why am I yet, &c.,” the word “I” is strongly emphatic; I also; i.e. “I, as well as my opponent.”—“Why am I yet, &c.:”—i.e. “after the recognition of the effect of my sin on the advancement of God’s glory.”—“By my lie;” lit. in my lie; i.e. “on occasion of it, in connexion with it.”