How does Romans 3:5 fit into the broader context of Paul's argument in Romans? Text “But if our unrighteousness serves to highlight the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust in inflicting His wrath? I am speaking in human terms.” – Romans 3:5 Immediate Context: Romans 3:1-8 Paul is engaging an imaginary Jewish interlocutor. After affirming the value of the oracles of God (3:2), he concedes Israel’s historic unfaithfulness (3:3-4) yet insists this does not nullify God’s faithfulness. Verse 5 raises the next objection: if human sin magnifies divine righteousness, does punishing that sin make God unfair? Paul swiftly rejects the notion (3:6-8). Paul’s Diatribe Method Throughout Romans 2–3 Paul employs the “diatribe,” posing objections and answering them. This technique lets him anticipate and dismantle misunderstandings before they harden into excuses (cf. 2:1, 2:17, 3:1, 3:9). God’s Righteousness Vindicated Romans overall proclaims “the righteousness of God” (1:17; 3:21-26). Verse 5 explores whether that righteousness is compromised by His judging role. Paul argues that rather than weakening it, judgment reveals righteousness in action. Sin is the dark canvas against which divine fidelity shines. Link to Psalm 51:4 Paul has just cited Psalm 51:4 in 3:4, where David confesses “so that You may be proved right when You speak and blameless when You judge.” The Psalm anchors Paul’s claim: God remains righteous even when condemning covenant members. Broader Flow from 1:18 to 3:20 1. 1:18-32 – Gentiles under wrath. 2. 2:1-29 – Jews likewise guilty. 3. 3:1-8 – Anticipated Jewish protests answered. 4. 3:9-20 – Universal indictment: “There is no one righteous” (3:10). Verse 5 sits at the pivot where Paul dismantles the last refuge of ethnic privilege. “Let Us Do Evil That Good May Come” Some twisted Paul’s gospel of grace into license (3:8; cf. 6:1). Verse 5 voices that error in embryonic form. By branding it “human terms,” Paul identifies the logic as fallen, not revelatory. Justice and Wrath Cohering If God declined to judge, He would cease to be just (3:6). Judgment is not a blemish on divine character; it is an essential facet. Later Paul will show how the cross satisfies justice while granting mercy (3:25-26). Transition to Justification by Faith (3:21-31) Once universal guilt is sealed, Paul unveils the solution: righteousness apart from Law, through faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). Thus the question of verse 5 magnifies the necessity and glory of the gospel. Historical Reception Early church fathers—Origen (Commentary on Romans 2.2) and Chrysostom (Hom. 7 on Romans)—recognize the verse as part of Paul’s diatribe against antinomian distortions, confirming its accepted interpretation from the second century onward. Philosophical Consistency Moral intuition affirms that a judge who refuses to punish wrongdoing is unjust. Paul’s argument coheres with natural law: righteousness demands retribution, yet also seeks restoration. The gospel uniquely satisfies both. Practical Implications 1. No sin is excusable because it “glorifies God.” 2. Divine wrath is not a flaw but a function of perfect holiness. 3. Recognition of guilt is a mercy that drives sinners to Christ. 4. Believers praise God that His righteousness, once their dread, becomes their inheritance in the risen Savior. Summary Romans 3:5 is a hypothetical objection Paul raises to expose flawed reasoning that would exempt Jews from judgment. By answering it, he upholds God’s unimpeachable righteousness, prepares the ground for the doctrine of universal sin, and points toward the redemptive solution revealed in Christ. |
    |