The Importance of Romans 9:14 for Understanding Paul's Argument

 

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." (Rom. 9:14 KJV)

Greek Text: τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν μὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ μὴ γένοιτο

When many people read through Romans 9, they fail to grasp the importance of what Paul is arguing against. They don't see that the rhetorical objections and questions that Paul emphatically denies (which is a characteristic of Paul's letters in the NT) do help us to understand exactly what Paul is arguing for. Such is the case with Romans 9:14. I would contend that understanding verse 14 accurately helps us to also understand what it was in verses 6-13 that gives rise to such an objection that there is with God. An important question for proponents of Arminianism and a "Corporate Election" reading of Romans 9 to answer is this: what give rise to the objection in 9:14? Would Paul's teaching teach God elected Israel over Edom (represented by Esau in verse 13, according to their interpretation) or that God elected a people based on their faith in Christ give rise to that idea that God is ἀδικία? Does this fit with Paul's logic and argumentation? I wish to explore that question briefly in this article. 

First of all, it is crucial to understand that the objection of verse 14 is framed by Paul in such a way in which the question will have a negative answer. This is seen by Paul's use of μὴ rather than οὐκ (which he often does when answering a question with μὴ γένοιτο; see Rom. 3:3-5; 9:14; 11:1, 11). The difficulty here is that the question is supposed to be an objection by a hypothetical opponent of Paul. At the same time, Paul's own denial of the idea that there is unrighteousness with God comes to subtly express itself in the question itself (v. 14). Paul does a similar thing in Rom. 3:5. 

Recognizing this helps us to understand what is meant by the term ἀδικία. It shows that there could be two meanings to the word: Paul's and the opponent's. Arminian scholar and theologian Brian Abasciano contends that it refers to "unfaithfulness to the divine promises to Israel" (Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Rom. 9.10-18, pg. 171ff.). If this is the case, Arminians have an easy way out of the problem I posed above, namely what in 9:6-13 gave rise to the objection of verse 14.

On the contrary, I believe that John Piper's (who I do not agree with on everything, to be sure) interpretation of ἀδικία as referring to "a disposition and conduct which contradict truth, namely, that he is glorious above all creation and worthy of all honor, thanks, and trust." (The Justification of God, pg. 94) is more plausible, because of the following reasons which Piper lays out in his book:

[1]. The term occurs in Rom. 1:8, 29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13; 9:14; 1 Cor. 13:6; 2 Cor. 12:13; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 2 Tim. 1:9. What these verses show is that ἀδικία is not merely the opposition of "righteousness" (dikaiosune) but also is opposed to aletheia ("truth"), as seen in Rom. 3:5

[2]. The term is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 12 as follows: "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness (ἀδικία) in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved...That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness (ἀδικία)." Here Paul places an antithesis between "belief in the truth" and ἀδικία. 

[3]. Romans 1:18 says "For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness (ἀδικία) of people who by their unrighteousness (ἀδικία) suppress the truth". Once again there is an antithesis placed between ἀδικία and the truth that God is worthy of glory and praise (Rom. 1:21)

[4]. In Romans 2:8 it says "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (ἀδικία), indignation and wrath." The antithesis is seen once again.

[5]. In 1 Cor. 13:6, it says that love "does not rejoice at wrongdoing (ἀδικία), but rejoices with the truth."

[6]. Finally, in Rom. 3:4-7, there is a parallel between verse 5 ("But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness (ἀδικία) of God, what shall we say?") and verse 7 ("But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?"). The person who is guilty of ἀδικία is living a lie, in contrast to "God's truth" (v. 7). 

Therefore, as Piper says, "the particular usage of ἀδικία seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Rom. 1:18; 2:8; 3:5; 1 Cor. 13:6 is very probably the one Paul has in view in Rom. 9:14. If so, his assertion would be that God cannot be faulted with a disposition or conduct that contradict the truth of who he is." (The Justification of God, pg. 95)

Finally, the fact that Paul uses γάρ in front of verses 15 and 17 (where he cites from Ex. 9:16 and 33:19b), shows that he views these verses as an answer to the objection being raised in verse 14.