Romans 3:1 - 9

Romans 3:1 - 4a
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.

Having established that circumcision alone does not save someone, for it doesn't impact the nous, St. Paul responds to the rhetorical question "Why circumcise then? Why did God command this?"

A similar line of questioning provides an excellent insight into the nature and role of baptism. Circumcision being the sign of the first covenant and baptism being the sign of the second covenant means they share some things in common. One can imagine a discussion over baptism proceeding between a non-baptizing sect of Christianity (like Quakers) and an Orthodox Christian proceeding something like this:

Orthodox: Baptism is commanded by Christ! It is the sign of the covenant. One cannot be a Christian without baptism.

Quaker: Can one be saved without baptism?

Orthodox: God is certainly bigger than us, so yes - if God grants His grace to someone and heals them of their sin, uniting to them and sanctifying them, then that person would be saved, whether baptized or not.

Quaker: Can one be saved with baptism?

Orthodox: Well, it is commanded by God in the Scriptures and through the Church. It certainly isn't sufficient. We are judged for our deeds, not for our baptisms.

Quaker: What then, is the benefit of baptism if being baptized does not save us, and baptism is not necessary for salvation?

It is easy to substitute "circumcision" for baptism in the above dialogue and, more or less, you'd have a summary of Romans 2 and the first few verses of Romans 3. St. Paul does not take agree that circumcision and the Law have no purpose. He explicitly refers to the Jews having been handed the revelation of God. Similarly, the Church has recieved Holy Tradition (which does command baptism) - and this revelation is NOT made false by our inability to live up to it. The mere fact that my own sinfulness spoils my baptism does not remove the TRUTH (Christ) IN that baptism any more than the sinfulness of the Jews negated the preparation for the Truth contained in the Law.

The oracles of God instruct us - and make clear to us our failings. Only in the light of the Truth can we percieve our own lies. Circumcision, the food laws, the ethical restrictions...these restraints, these Holy ascetic disciplines were meant to circumcise the nous in preparation for the coming of Christ. On their own they can do nothing, for we do not "elect" ourselves to unity with God. Rather, the circumcised heart - the true Jew - at the coming of Christ and the joining of the Divine and human natures in Him is thereafter filled with Christ and united to God.

We cannot know what to do if we do not have the Truth. That doesn't mean that, possessing the Truth, we follow it / Him. Similarly, as St. Paul says, just because someone doesn't agree to the Truth, it doesn't negate that Truth nor negate the faithfulness of God. God is faithful - He speaks truly and He honors His covenant - it is we who are unfaithful. The Truth IS. It doesn't change. It simply IS.

So the Jew does have an advantage over the Gentile - the Jew has been given the Law which is the preparation for the Truth (Christ). This, in the Orthodox mindset, might subject the Jew (or Christian) to a more difficult judgment, since much will be expected from those who have been given much. Think of the parable of the talent. The one given 10 talents returned 20. The one given 5 talents returned 10. They were both called good and faithful. But had the one given 10 talents returned only 10? He would have been judged as the unfaithful servant who returned only 1 talent after being given 1. Despite the more demanding judgment, the Truth is always to our advantage since, by definition, the ONLY salvation is by the Truth (by unity to Christ). Anything which pushes us towards that is edifying and good.

Romans 3:4b
As it is written: "That you may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged."

It is important to recall the entire Psalm to which St. Paul is referring, rather than read these words as isolated proof-texts. This is from Psalm 50 (51) - the Psalm St. David wrote after his adultery, in repentance. It is a Psalm of a sinner repenting, and it demonstrates the proper attitude we ought to have in our repentance. We don't approach God, when we are the sinners, demanding that God give an account to us as to why His Truth didn't FORCE us to be righteous. We don't demand from God nor judge God. A penitent heart understands that God's Truth IS, and that it is WE who fail to live up to IT. God is faithful. God is justified. We are not. The Jew cannot, being the sinner, stand before God and demand an account for why circumcision didn't save him. The Christian cannot stand before God and judge Him for his failure to live up to his calling in baptism.

Romans 3:5 - 8
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? For if the Truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? - as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

St. Paul here addresses another series of rhetorical questions placed into the mouths of his judaizing opponents.

To the first one, of course God isn't unjust to inflict wrath if it is we, by our free will, who have rejected God's presence and blackened our nous to Him. As in all questions of judgment, we must have faith in God. Remember the parable of the talents again - did the master demand 10 additional talents of the servant who was given 5? Of course not! We don't systematize God's judgment, nor can we speculate as to who is or is not saved. Rather, we must trust God (have faith in God) that His judgment is righteous and faithful. God knows what we have and have not had the capacity to chose. God knows our hearts better than we do. And God is love. We must trust Him.

Trusting God, we then know that if God inflicts wrath, He is justified in doing so. Remember Psalm 50. We don't demand anything from God. Rather, as the sinner, we kneel before God and accept His judgment as right. That is the only proper attitude for someone seeking God's grace.

And what is this inflicting wrath, if God is love? Many Orthodox theologians far more spiritually advanced than myself have written on this. I cannot hope to "solve" this as if it were some puzzle. It is important to note that the wrath doesn't belong to God. God isn't really really angry at us, nor is He a monarch holding our sins over us with a wrathful justice. Rather, God is love, and we, as I said above, are "judged" by our ability or inability to know that love. The infliction of wrath is the experience of God's absence, or of our absence from Him (more properly, since God is everywhere). God is love. God is not wrath. God cannot be wrath because then God would have underwent change at the fall. He would have been all-loving, then, after the fall, some combination of love and wrath and then, after forgiveness, all-loving again. This subjects God to human activity - it makes God changeable like a human being with human emotions. To be certain, Christ has human emotions, but God in His essence? We should be careful not to limit God just to make Him easier to comprehend.

The second rhetorical question asks whether we should be lauded for our sins, since the sin gives opportunity for God's grace to abound. If our sin brings God glory, then how can we be judged for it? The Judaizers don't mean to imply that this is accurate, rather, this question is meant to point out an intolerable conclusion of St. Paul's theology. They slanderously report that St. Paul wants people to sin (to not follow the Law; to not follow the food laws and be circumcized) that God's grace may abound through the righteousness that comes by faith.

They miss the point, though. They're still trying to systematize God and God's judgment, rather than accepting that righteousness is required of us, God's Truth demonstrates this to us, and God's grace enables us, by faith, to repent and follow that Truth (Christ). We should stop sinning. However, assuming that the Law will save us is false. Rather, we cease sinning by following Christ. The sign of the new covenant is not the Jewish Law - Judaism is not the center of Christianity. At the time, Judaism was extremely diverse, but all Jews had to be circumsized and agree to the Law. Since Christians rejected the Temple Cult, and saw the food laws as overridden by Christ's recapitulating of the world in Himself, and saw baptism as the sign of the new covenant (making circumcision irrelevant), they were subject to this criticism. The Jews and Judaizers saw these changes as sinful. St. Paul is arguing that they are not.

But the point here is that the accusation that St. Paul promotes sin is silly. Does he understand what is sinful in a different way from the Judaizers? Yes. But that's the whole point of His treatise in this epistle - to demonstrate that these things are not required for righteousness; that the Judaizers are wrong.

Romans 3:9
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

This is a direct reference to St. Paul's discourse earlier in the epistle. Christians (Jewish or Gentile) aren't any better than Judaizers when it comes to sin. We aren't any better. It would be beneficial to us to remember this more often.

Does this imply a doctrine of Original Sin? To an extent, but not necessarily in the Augustinian sense, and certainly not in the Calvinist sense. Remember that St. Paul himself spoke earlier in the epistle about how someone, having never heard the Law, might be saved. This isn't a total depravity, nor are we born with guilt, rather we are born into a culture of sin by which we learn to sin, and this sin damages our nous and removes us from God. Our own sin does this, not someone else's. Yet we are subject to sin because, in reality, both Jew and Gentile live in this culture of sin and imitate it. We aren't guilty of Adam's sin, but we are victims of it, and we are guilty of the way our sin victimizes others (as we learn from and contribute to this culture of sin).

Forgive me,
Macarius