When reading Paul’s letter to the Romans, it’s easy to forget that he often writes as though he’s in conversation with an imaginary opponent. This style, known as diatribe, is one of the key literary devices Paul employs to sharpen his arguments and address objections head-on.
The Diatribe Style
Douglas Moo explains:
“Paul utilizes here, and sporadically throughout the letter, a literary genre called the diatribe. In this genre, an author gets his point across by engaging in an imaginary discussion or debate with a student or opponent. Elements of this style include frequent questions, posed by the author himself to his conversation partner or by the conversation partner, emphatic rejections of possible objections to a line of argument using me genoito(‘May it never be!’), and the direct address of one’s conversation partner or opponent. Romans 3:1–8 is a particularly clear example of this dialogical style; and chap. 2, while not containing any true dialogue, is similar to those parts of the diatribe in which the ‘teacher’ rebukes his conversation partner by exposing his presumption and inconsistency” (Moo, Romans, 124–25).
In Romans 3:1–6, Paul anticipates and answers a series of objections that his Jewish hearers might raise in response to his earlier claims.
The First Objection: What Advantage Has the Jew? (v. 1)
Paul has just argued in chapter 2 that circumcision does not guarantee salvation, nor does descent from Abraham. That naturally raises a protest:
“If physical circumcision does not contribute to salvation, if being a descendant of Abraham does not guarantee blessing, if the Law only brings knowledge of sin, and if Jews are just as liable to judgment as Gentiles — what good is there in being a Jew at all?”
The key term here is opheleia (“benefit” or “advantage”). Its verb form was already used in Romans 2:25, where it carried the sense of “saving advantage.” Thus, Paul is asking if there is any spiritual or saving value in being a Jew.
C. K. Barrett explains the weight of this objection:
“If the OT is to be believed God did choose the Jews out of all mankind and did bestow special privileges upon them. To reduce them therefore to the level of other nations is either to accuse the OT of falsehood, or to accuse God of failing to carry out his plans. It is this theological objection to his thesis that Paul is bound to meet” (Romans, 62).
Paul’s First Answer: The Oracles of God (v. 2)
Paul’s answer is brief but profound:
“First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.”
This phrase refers to the Old Testament Scriptures (see Ps. 147:19–20; Deut. 4:8). William Hendriksen writes:
“One item tops all others, namely, the fact that to the Jews, and to no other nation, was accorded the unique privilege, the high honor, of being the custodians of the oracles of God, that entire special revelation to Israel which consisted not only of commandments, but also of predictions and promises” (Romans, 109).
Thomas Schreiner adds nuance by suggesting that Paul may have more in mind than the mere possession of Scripture:
“The promises of salvation for Israel are uppermost in Paul’s mind. The advantage should not be restricted merely to the possession of the Scriptures and the stewardship required because of their possession. This would scarcely advance the argument beyond chapter 2. Rather, Paul declares something more profound about the ‘saving advantage’ that ethnic Israel possessed: they had promises from God ensuring them of future salvation” (Romans, 149).
Interestingly, Paul introduces his answer with “first of all” (v. 2), but never completes the list. The fuller account of Israel’s privileges appears later in Romans 9:3–5. In fact, we need to look closely to Rom 9-11 to understand all this.
The Second Objection: Does Jewish Unbelief Cancel God’s Faithfulness? (v. 3)
Another objection follows: “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?”
This is no small question. If Israel’s disobedience cancels out God’s promises, then the entire Old Testament witness collapses. Paul begins to answer here in Romans 3, but he expands on this objection throughout Romans 9–11, where he argues that God’s covenant faithfulness remains intact despite Israel’s unbelief.
The Third Objection: Is God Unjust to Judge? (vv. 5–6)
A third objection emerges: “But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us?”
Paul responds with his emphatic rejection: “By no means! For then how could God judge the world?” (v. 6). If sin could excuse judgment because it somehow highlights God’s righteousness, then the entire moral order collapses. God’s justice requires that He judge sin.
Conclusion
Romans 3:1–6 showcases Paul’s masterful use of the diatribe. He anticipates objections, states them clearly, and then dismantles them in a way that reveals the consistency of God’s covenant purposes. Israel’s advantage was real — they were entrusted with the very Word of God — but that privilege did not exempt them from judgment. Instead, it pointed them (and all of us) to the faithfulness of God, which finds its fulfillment in Christ.
References
- Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.
- Hendriksen, William. Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
- Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
- Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
- Storms, Sam. Biblical Studies: Romans. Edmond, OK: Sam Storms, 2016.
Leave a Reply