Session 26 - The Four Questions of Romans 3
Two major hurdles to overcome when you are reading Pauls letter to the romans are (1) illogical verse and chapter breaks, and (2) formatting challenges. The original manuscripts that were used in translation would have been written without punctuation, not even word spacing, and all caps. Basically, it looked like a wall of letters with no emotion of feeling. Translators add these traits to the text through punctuation. Then, some time in the 15th century, chapter and verse numbers were added in order to make the book easier for scholars to search or to reference on particular line of text. It is likely that very little thought (if any) was given to how this would affect the flow of readers in the future. Divisions like we see at the start of chapter 2 have but entire processes of thought in half, turning chapter 1 into a harsh condemnation of Gentiles, rather than a rhetorical device meant to inhibit condemnation.
Formatting is a whole other issue, one that I believe needs to rise to the forefront of all future translations. Take, for instance, the NIV’s formatting for Romans 3:1-20 here:
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
ROMANS 3:1-20 (NIV)
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
It’s a pretty standard format, the NIV mirrors most other translations. The problem is that there are no markers to communicate what is really happening in the text. Let me show you what I mean: here is that same text, formatted to communicate to the reader how to read the text:
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?
2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?
4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)
6 Certainly not!
If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”?
Their condemnation is just!
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage?
Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin… (11-19 follows).
When we do this, we can see a conversation here, a back-and-forth between two characters, the pious Jewish Christian and the teacher himself. There are four major themes in the form of questions:
The first set of questions (v1) is about the point of Judaism.
The second (v3) asks if our unfaithfulness means that God is unfaithful too.
The third question (v5) amounts to “isn’t this all really Gods fault?”
The fourth (v6b-8) asks about Jewish priority over the Gentiles, “Aren’t we better?”
It is a line of questions that reveals a faith that has been malformed, crooked, off-balance. A faith that has turned inwards on the self, making the self the beneficiary of all that God has done in the world.
Israel had always assumed that Judaism was the point. When God started doing something unexpected by including outsiders, Gentiles, in the people of God (bypassing the traditional route through Judaism), they had an existential crisis. “Then why are we here?” They could only see Gods plan in the elevating of their own status, in the empowering of their people. They assumed that they were special in the world, loved by God moreso than other nations. But if they are on equal footing with everyone else, then what is the point of being Israel.
Many Christians today make the same mistake when they assume that Christianity is the point of Christianity. We talk about someone else being one of us as if it means they have a higher status, as if God favors them.
The reality is that the church, like Israel, exists to be a blessing to the world by simply being the presence of God in this world. For the Christian, that means embodying the revelation of Jesus. We become his presence in this world in the way that we gather, love, serve, show mercy and grace, forgive, and as we work for the peace and reconciliation of all things to God and humanity. We become conduit through which God can love, shape, and guide the world. WE are the hands and feet of the divine.
Christianity is simply the rituals and disciplines that have grown out of the teachings and life of Jesus, teachings and rituals were never the point, even if we have given them the name Christianity. Jesus is always the point, and our Christianity, how ever we choose to practice it, should direct us outwards, towards the world and the divine, not inward, concerned with priority.
Discussion Questions:
How does understanding the historical context of the translation and formatting challenges in Paul's letter to the Romans impact our interpretation of the text?
How might this knowledge change the way we approach and understand other biblical passages?The sermon highlights four major themes revealed through a series of questions in Romans 3:1-20.
How do these questions address misconceptions about faith and priority that existed in the early Christian community, and how might they still resonate with believers today?The sermon emphasizes that both ancient Israel and contemporary Christians often struggle with self-centered perspectives, assuming their religious traditions or faith practices make them more favored by God. How can we guard against falling into the same trap and instead focus on being a blessing to the world as followers of Jesus?
If the point of Christianity is not the rituals and disciplines but rather embodying the teachings and life of Jesus, directing us outwards towards the world and the divine, how can we practically apply this principle in our daily lives and in the way we engage with our communities and the broader world?
How might this perspective shift our understanding of the purpose and mission of the Church?If you believe the point of Christianity is different from what is described in question 4, what would you say is the point?