How does human unrighteousness show God’s righteousness?

Explanation:

Paul has explained God’s impartiality and faithfulness. Now Paul asks, If our unrighteousness serves to show God’s righteousness, is God just to inflict wrath on us? To understand what Paul means, it is important to understand him in the context of Romans 3:4. For there he introduces an important quote from Psalm 51:4, which highlights his point in this section. In particular, after saying that Jewish unfaithfulness does not nullify God’s faithfulness, Paul writes, Let God be true though every one were a liar, before quoting Psalm 51:4 where David writes, that you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged. The reason Paul includes this quote here is to point out that God’s faithfulness includes his faithfulness to punish sin.³

Now Paul says that if our unrighteousness serves to show God’s righteousness, does this not imply that God is unjust for punishing our sin? Based on why Paul introduces Psalm 51:4, we can detect what he means. He means that our sin displays God’s faithfulness to punish sin. ⁴ But if our sin displays God’s faithfulness to punish sin, does this not mean God is unjust for punishing our sin?

Counterargument:

Paul introduces Psalm 51:4 to suggest not that God is faithful to punish sin, but that God is faithful to Israel despite their sinfulness.⁵ The quote suggests that at the final judgment, God will be vindicated because he will remain faithful to his covenant with Israel, even though they have sinned.⁶ Thus, Paul is not saying that God’s righteousness will be demonstrated in the sense of his righteous judgment against sin, but it will be displayed in his faithfulness to Israel.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this interpretation of Paul’s use of Psalm 51:4 is that it goes against the meaning of David, the author of the psalm. Now, it is possible for Paul to use a quote from Scripture to make a point that does not align with the original author’s meaning. Still, it is more likely for Paul to apply the insight of the original passage according to the original meaning.⁷ In this case, David is saying that God is right to punish him for his sin with Bathsheba. Thus, likely Paul uses the quote to point out that God is right to display his righteous judgment on sin.

Explanation:

We can detect what Paul means when he says that our unrighteousness reveals God’s righteousness, because God’s righteousness involves God’s judgment. In other words, our unrighteousness causes God to judge us, and in judging us, God’s righteous judgment is revealed. We know that God’s righteousness involves his judgment because this is clearly outlined in the Old Testament.⁸ For example, in 2 Chronicles 12:5–6 we read that after God abandoned the king and princes of Judah, the king and princes recognize that God is righteous. Likewise, in Lamentations 1:18 we read that the Lord is righteous, for the author has rebelled against his word. Similarly, Paul is saying that our unrighteousness serves to show God’s righteousness, in that God’s judging righteousness is displayed when he punishes our unrighteousness.

Counterargument:

It is not clear that when Paul refers to God’s righteousness, he has God’s judgment in mind. Rather, when Paul refers to God’s righteousness in Romans 1:17 he seems to have God’s mercy and love in mind. For Paul says in the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed. In other words, God’s love and mercy, captured by God’s righteousness, are revealed in the gospel. Likewise, Paul seems to be saying that our unrighteousness displays God’s love and mercy, which leads him to wonder why God is just for punishing our sin. 

Response to counterargument:

When Paul says that the gospel reveals God’s righteousness, this implies both his loving mercy and his judgment on sin. For after saying that God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel, Paul says in Romans 1:18 that his wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness. So God’s righteousness implies both his loving mercy in the gospel and his wrath against sin. Thus, Paul’s view of God’s righteousness aligns with Old Testament authors, who detect in God’s righteousness both his loving mercy and his wrath. Likewise, in Romans 3:5, Paul says that our unrighteousness serves to show God’s righteousness, in the sense that our sin serves to show God’s righteous judgment against sin.

The weakness of this view is that there are subtle hints from the immediate context that Paul is referring to God’s faithfulness to the covenant in light of Jewish unfaithfulness. These hints come from Romans 3:3 and Romans 3:7. In Romans 3:3, Paul refers to God’s faithfulness to the covenant in light of the Israelites' unfaithfulness. And in Romans 3:7 he says that through his lie God’s truth abounds to his glory. These notions suggest that Paul has in mind covenant faithfulness and unfaithfulness throughout this section.

Explanation:

Paul says that our unrighteousness displays God’s righteousness, before asking if it is unjust for God to punish us for sin. We can understand why Paul would say this by considering the immediate context. For in Romans 3:3 he says that Israel’s unfaithfulness does not nullify God’s faithfulness. That Israelite unfaithfulness does not nullify God’s faithfulness means that although Israel is unfaithful to the covenant, God remains faithful to his promises. That is, God will still save the Israelites. Of course, this leads to the pressing question: if God remains faithful to the Israelites even though they sin, why should God still punish us for sin? That is, if our sin reveals God’s mercy, why expect God to punish our sin? ¹²

Counterargument:

Paul refers to God’s faithfulness in the covenant in Romans 3:3. Then in Romans 3:4 he writes, Let God be true though every one were a liar, before quoting Psalm 51:4 to the effect that God is just for punishing sin. Then we reach Romans 3:5 where Paul refers to our unrighteousness revealing God’s righteousness. Given that Romans 3:5 follows immediately from Romans 3:4, and Romans 3:4 has to do with God being just for punishing sin, likely Paul is not referring to Israelite unfaithfulness and God’s faithfulness in rom Romans 3:5. Rather, he is referring to our sinfulness, and God’s display of righteousness for punishing sin.

Response to counterargument:

It is plausible to understand the quote from David as a reference to God’s faithfulness to his character as the supreme source of goodness. That is, in the Psalm, David is saying that he trusts God to deal with David’s sin however he pleases, because in the end, God is always justified in his words. That is, God’s ways are perfect. Thus, if God wants to remain faithful to the covenant even in light of Israelite unfaithfulness, that is God’s prerogative as the one who is perfectly good and righteous. Of course, this naturally leads to the question. If our unfaithfulness displays God’s faithfulness, do we still deserve punishment for sin?

Explanation:

Paul is saying, If our unrighteousness serves to show God’s righteousness, why does God still punish us? We can detect what Paul means because he follows this up with, I speak in a human way. This suggests that he is embarrassed by the sharpness of the problem he has set for himself.¹³ That is, he reveals that he has backed himself into a corner by saying that if our unrighteousness showed God’s righteousness, why would God punish us? So why would such a phrase back Paul into a corner? Because he seems to be saying that our unfaithfulness displays God’s faithfulness, but if that is the case, why would God punish us?

Counterargument:

The reason Paul includes the clause, I speak in a human way, is not because he is embarrassed, but because the notion that God should refrain from punishing us because our unrighteousness reveals his righteousness is so far removed from reality that it is blasphemous in Paul’s mind.¹⁴ Of course, that it is blasphemous to suggest that God should not punish sin because our unrighteousness shows his righteousness is consistent with other interpretations of Romans 3:5. That is, if our unrighteousness shows God’s righteous judgment, some might suggest God ought not to punish our sin, which Paul thinks is nearly blasphemous to suggest. Since the clause, I speak in a human way, is consistent with multiple interpretations, it cannot be used to support the notion that Paul is saying Israelite unfaithfulness displays God’s covenant faithfulness.

The weakness of this view is that it does not adequately explain the logic of Paul’s thinking. For if Paul is saying that Jewish unfaithfulness displays God’s faithfulness in the sense that God remains faithful to the covenant, then God is not going to inflict wrath on the Jews. So why would Paul ask if it is just for God to do so, when he has just implied that God will not do so?

Explanation:

In Romans 1:16–17 we learn that the gospel reveals the righteousness of God. The gospel is the fact that God sent Jesus into the world to save us from our sins. Now, in Romans 3:5, Paul says our unrighteousness displays God’s righteousness. Given that the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, Paul must be saying that our sin is what displays God’s righteousness as it is revealed in the gospel.¹⁵ Thus, Paul is saying that our sin displays God’s righteousness in the gospel.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it assumes there is only one way for God’s righteousness to be displayed. That is, it assumes that because the gospel displays God’s righteousness, the gospel is the only way God’s righteousness is displayed. Of course, we know this is false because Old Testament writers refer to God’s righteousness being displayed due to varying contexts, such as God punishing sin (2 Chronicles 12:5–6; Lamentations 1:18). Added to this, Paul does not say that the gospel displays God’s righteousness in Romans 3:5, but that our unrighteousness does.

The weakness of this view is that it tries to understand Paul based on the broader literary context, without considering the influence of the immediate literary context. It is a mistake to do this because the immediate context influences the meaning of a text more than the broader context. So both the broader and immediate context ought to be taken into account, and this view only considers the broader context.