^1-2 So if it is circumcision of the heart rather than circumcision of the flesh that will preserve Israel on the day of wrath, and if uncircumcised Gentiles will keep the precepts of the law, stand in judgment over rebellious Israel, and even bear the name ‘Jew’, is there any point in being Jewish as such? Plenty, Paul says, but only hints at what this means at this point. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This is the only place that Paul uses the word oracles (logia). It is used in the Greek Old Testament (especially in Psalm 119) for the ‘word’ of God, but it also has strong pagan connotations (cf. the oracles of Delphi), which may hint at the thought that the Jews were entrusted with the word of God for the sake of the whole world (cf. Wright, Romans, 453).

³ But this precisely highlights the theological problem that lies at the heart of Romans. If those who have been entrusted (the word, significantly, is pisteuō, ‘to put trust in’) with the oracles of God in the world turn out to be unfaithful in fulfilling that responsibility, does this nullify the faithfulness of God? Does it mean that God cannot be trusted to remain true to himself? Paul may already have in mind the original promise to Abraham (cf. Rom. 9:6-9), but the rest of the paragraph suggests that is God’s integrity and justice that are at issue. The word for faithfulness here is pistis can also mean ‘faith’, but Paul’s point is not that Israel lacked ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ but that the nation did not remain faithful to the task that had been entrusted to it: it carries the idea of commitment and steadfastness over time. The faithfulness of God should be understood in the same way, as will become clearer as the argument develops.

⁴ The answer, of course, is no – God does not become untrue to himself. Paul quotes Psalm 51:4: ‘Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.’ If David sins, he cannot blame God for the tragic outcome (cf. 2 Sam. 12:15-23). Likewise, if Israel sins, God cannot be blamed for the devastation that will come upon the nation.

^5-6 In response to Israel’s unrighteous behaviour – its failure to keep the precepts of the law – God is bound to act righteously and execute justice by inflicting wrath on his people in a manner similar to the Babylonian invasion. Does that seem unfair? If YHWH is a God of justice for the whole world, he must be a God of justice with respect to Israel – even though theirs are ‘the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the worship and the promises’ (Rom. 9:4). God cannot with integrity inflict wrath on – that is, judge in a concrete historical sense – the idolatrous and unrighteous Greek-Roman world without first judging ‘idolatrous’ and unrighteous Israel.

^7-8 If Israel’s unrighteousness is the opportunity for God to demonstrate his justice, could it not be argued that it is a good thing to sin because the justice and truth of God will be made all the more apparent, to his glory? And if that’s the case, why should someone be judged as a sinner? Paul does not directly answer this gross misrepresentation of the justice of God, which is presumably the somewhat ironic argument of a scandalized Jewish or Jewish Christian opponent who has failed to grasp the fact that the integrity of God is at stake. Paul will return to the issue in chapter 6, though from a slightly different angle. For now he curtly dismisses the objection. ‘Anyone who could think Paul was so perverse in his reasoning is hardly worth arguing with!’ (Dunn, Romans, 143).