What does it mean that God’s faithfulness is not annulled?

 Explanation:

Paul explains that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, and then asks, What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? Paul predicts that some in his audience might be asking themselves this question. For if the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, and some were unfaithful and sinned against God, does this mean that the Jews have fallen out of God’s favour?

What is important to notice about the way Paul poses this question is his use of the indefinite pronoun τίς. ⁴ Paul uses the masculine plural form of the word, which we at times translate into English as some. So Paul is asking whether the unfaithfulness of some Jews nullifies God’s faithfulness to the Jewish nation as a whole. Paul will answer no, because God has kept a remnant for himself who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, the unfaithfulness of some Jews is not enough to nullify God’s faithfulness to the nation as a whole.

Counterargument:

The reason Paul uses the plural masculine form of the indefinite pronoun τίς, which we translate some, is to lessen the offence of his statement. For we know from Romans 9:1–11:36 that Paul actually believed that most Jews were unfaithful.⁵ Paul is writing to Jews and Gentiles, and he is working toward presenting the gospel accurately and clearly. Since we are still in the opening sections of his letter, he is careful to bring his audience along by using conservative terms such as some, but later he will explain that most of Israel was unfaithful.

Response to counterargument:

Whether or not Paul had in mind some or most Jews when he says that some were unfaithful is beside the point. The point here is that when Paul says the unfaithfulness of some Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness, he means that if some, or even most, individual Jews are unfaithful, this does not nullify God’s faithfulness to the nation of Israel as a whole. ⁶ In fact, Paul will explain in Romans 9:6–11:24 that while some, or even most Jews, are unfaithful, God has kept a remnant for himself. In other words, the unfaithfulness of some or most Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness to Israel as a whole, and so a remnant will be saved.

Explanation:

Paul asks whether the faithlessness of some Jews is enough to nullify God’s faithfulness. The obvious answer is no, because God’s faithfulness is basic. Still, to understand what Paul means, it is important to remember that there are two sides to God’s faithfulness. On the one hand, God is faithful to judge the wicked, and on the other, he is faithful to bless those who love him. ⁷ So when Paul says that God is faithful in spite of the unfaithfulness of some Jews, he means that God will judge and bless according to his faithfulness. That is, some will receive God’s judgment while others will receive his blessing.

Counterargument:

It is unlikely that when Paul says the unfaithfulness of some Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness, he has in mind God’s judgment and blessing. For God’s faithfulness is presented in the Old Testament as his loving mercy and kindness regarding those in the covenant (Deuteronomy 7:9). In other words, Paul is not discussing God’s faithfulness toward his own nature, which implies both his judgment and mercy. Rather, he is referring to God’s faithfulness to the covenant, which implies his love and mercy, not his judgment.

The weakness of this view is that it does not consider the scope of Paul’s comments Romans 9:1–11:36, where Paul explains that all Israel will be saved. For if all Israel will be saved, Paul is not saying that the unfaithfulness of some Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness to the nation as a whole. Rather, it means that the unfaithfulness of some does not nullify God’s faithful to each individual Jew who will be saved.

Explanation:

Paul says the unfaithfulness of the Jews will not nullify God’s faithfulness. There are two steps to understanding what Paul means. First, we notice that he uses the future tense of the verb to nullify. Paul is saying that the unfaithfulness of the Jews in the past and present will not nullify God’s faithfulness in the future. ¹⁰ That Paul has God’s faithfulness in the future in mind suggests that he has future salvation in mind. So he is saying that the unfaithfulness of some Jews now will not nullify God’s promise to give salvation in the future.

Second, when we reach Romans 11:1–36, Paul explains that the result of Israel’s unfaithfulness is that the Gentiles will believe (Romans 11:25). He then goes on to say that once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, all of Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26).¹¹

So, we can see what Paul means when he says that Israel’s unfaithfulness does not nullify God’s faithfulness. He means that even though some Jews are unfaithful, God uses their unfaithfulness to bring in the Gentiles, so that in the end all Israel will be saved in the future.

Counterargument:

We ought to be careful not to read Romans 11:1–36 into Paul’s meaning in Romans 3:3. For in Romans 3:3, Paul is in the beginning stages of his letter, so he has purposes that may differ from his purposes in Romans 11:1–36. In particular, he is not yet concerned with how God uses the unfaithfulness of Israel to accomplish his purposes with the Gentiles, but that will come later in Romans 9:1–11:36. Rather, at this stage, Paul is concerned with explaining to his audience the purpose of circumcision and the value of being Jewish. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, and just because some of them were unfaithful, as Paul has explained, God continues to be faithful to them as a nation.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it overlooks the future tense of the verb to nullify. It is one thing for God to be faithful to the nation of Israel in the sense of continuing to protect and bless them as they preserve the oracles of God. It is another for God to be faithful in the future. God’s future faithfulness has to do with salvation, and Paul expands on exactly this in Romans 9:1–11:36. Thus, we can use insights from Romans 9:1–11:36 to inform our understanding of Paul in Romans 3:3.

Explanation:

When Paul wrote Romans, he likely had the Song of Moses in mind, and knowing that he had the Song of Moses in mind can help us understand what he means when he says that Israel’s unfaithfulness will not nullify God’s faithfulness. In the Song of Moses, Moses contrasts the faithfulness of God, who is a loving father to Israel, with the unfaithfulness of his children. ¹² Paul does the same here in Romans, where he wonders whether the faithlessness of the Jews nullifies God’s faithfulness.

Further, in the Song of Moses, Moses says that God will make Israel jealous by those who are no people. And in Romans 11:14, Paul reiterates this point when he explains that by opening the gospel to the Gentiles, God makes the Jews jealous. Finally, Paul explains that making the Jews jealous is part of God’s plan to eventually save all of Israel (Romans 11:25–26). ¹³ So Paul is influenced by the song of Moses, and by recalling this, he explains that Jewish unfaithfulness does not nullify God’s faithfulness to save all of Israel.

 Counterargument:

The connection between Romans 3:3 and the song of Moses is loose at best. The fact is, Paul refers to Jewish faithlessness and God’s faithfulness because this is a fitting literary feature that suits the context of Romans 3:2. In Romans 3:2 he says that the Jews were ἐπιστεύθησαν (entrusted) with the oracles. He then uses the related verb ἀπιστέω (to disbelieve) to ask whether the Jews’ unfaithfulness nullifies the πίστιν (faithfulness) of God. Clearly, by using the verb and noun forms of πίστις in Romans 3:2 and Romans 3:3, Paul is using a play on words to make his point. That is, if the Jews were entrusted with the oracles but became untrustworthy, is God still trustworthy? That Paul uses a play on words to make his point shows that Romans 3:3 is not inspired by the song of Moses, but reflects Paul’s choices as an effective writer.

Response to counterargument:

That Paul uses a play on words in Romans 3:2–3 does not imply that he does not have the song of Moses in mind. Rather, recalling the song of Moses may have been his inspiration to utilize the play on words as he did. For the content of the song of Moses aligns well with Paul’s thinking here, and in Romans 11:1–36. That he implements his inspiration from the song of Moses with wordplay only demonstrates his ability as a writer.

This view relies entirely on Romans 11:1–36, which falls outside the immediate literary context of Romans 3:3. Interpreting a passage in light of passages that fall outside the immediate context is acceptable but must be done with care. For the immediate context has more influence on the meaning of a text.