Much every way; chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom 3:2)
The following are some notes on the debate about the meaning of “oracles” and the use of the aorist ἐπιστεύθησαν (“were committed”):
Douglas Moo:
[I]t is clear that the first advantage Paul enumerates is the supreme privilege granted to the Jews: “they have been entrusted with the oracles of God.” Paul uses the third person (“they”) because, as in 9:1-5, he is thinking not of all Jews, including Jewish-Christians like himself, but only of unbelieving Jews. The word “oracles” (e.g., “divine utterances”) is used in the LXX of Balaam’s “oracle” (Num. 24:4, 16) and frequently of God’s “words” to his people. The general meaning of the word gives rise to a plethora of suggestions about its specific reference here: “unmistakably divine” utterances of the OT; God’s self-revelation in both the OT and NT; and the law, especially the Decalogue; and the promises of the OT, or the OT as a whole, with special reference, perhaps, to the promises. Of these alternatives, the last suits best the general application of the word in the LXX and the NT. Paul sets forth as the greatest of Jewish distinctions the fact that God has spoken to them and entered, with these words, into a special relationship with them. Material, though not linguistic, parallels to Paul’s assertion are found in Deut. 4:8—“What other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?”—and Ps. 147:19-20—“He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.” That the promises of God are included in “the oracles” is, of course, obvious; and Paul has probably chosen to use this word, rather than, for example, “the Scriptures,” because he wants to highlight those “sayings” of the OT in which God committed himself to certain actions with reference to his people. This nuance is suggested also by the words “unbelief” and “unfaithfulness” (v. 3) to designate Israel’s failure and the words “faithfulness” and “reliability” to denote God’s commitment. (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1996], 182-3)
Joseph A. Fitzmyer:
Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. For the diverse senses of logion in classical Greek writers, see J. W. Doeve, “Some Notes.” The phrase ta logia tou theou is not to be limited to the messianic promises, as Sanday and Headlam (Romans, 70), Godet, and Cornely, following Ambrosiaster (Ad Romanos 3:2 [CSEL 81.94]), have understood it, or to the Mosaic law, as John Chrysostom (In ep. ad Romanos 6.4 [PG 60.457]) interpreted it, or to the promises made to the patriarchs, as Lietzmann (An die Römer, 45) has taken it. Rather, it is to be taken in the broad sense of the whole of the OT in which the revelation of God’s will is set forth, as Lagrange (Romains, 60) prefers, and as Philo (De praem. et poen. 1 §1; De vita cont. 3 §25) and Josephus (J.W. 6.5.4 §§311–13) use it. In the LXX the phrase ta logia tou theou (Num 24:4, 16; Ps 106:11) denotes the utterances of God made to prophets, which were to be communicated to his people. These included not only revelations and promises, but also rules of conduct by which Israel was expected to live. Yet as elsewhere in the NT (Heb 5:12; 1 Pet 4:11), the phrase refers to the OT in general as God’s word about salvation.
Such utterances of God included the blessings promised to the children of Abraham, but were not limited to them. Yet the possession of such oracles constitutes a clear advantage that the Jew has. See Deut 4:7–8, where Moses asks, “What great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day!” (Cf. Pss 147:19–20; 103:7. Yet such OT teaching also included a threat of God’s punishment despite such privilege: “You alone have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will chastise you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2).
Noteworthy is the play on the words involving pistis: thus episteuthēsan, ēpistēsan, apistia, pistin. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 326-7)
Gary Michuta:
Let’s look at the last line: “the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.” Which Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God? The “Jewish province” argument assumes that first-century Judaism was more or less a monolithic religious body. It wasn’t. First-century Judaism comprised several groups, sects, and schools, each claiming to be the true expression of Judaism. Although there was substantial agreement on many issues, all of these groups and sects held differing opinions, even on which books were to be considered Sacred Scripture. For example, the Samaritans (if they can be included in this list) believed that only the Pentateuch was Scripture, and it’s quite possible that the Sadducees did as well [20]. The Essenes may not have accepted Esther, but possibly accepted Tobit, Sirach, Enoch, and perhaps other books [21]. Even the Pharisees were not unified on this point. The Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel were divided on Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, and possibly other books as well [22]. . . . the wording of Romans 3:2 shows that St. Paul is not speaking about an exclusive Jewish jurisdiction over the Old Testament that lasts into perpetuity, but rather about something that existed in the past . . . A more accurate translation is that the Jews “were entrusted with the oracles of God.” The Greek word translated “were entrusted” is a third-person, aorist, passive, indicative verb meaning that the “entrustment” was something that happened in the past; the Jews were at one time entrusted with the oracles of God. Paul surely believed that Christians are now entrusted with God’s oracles.
When we examine the context of Romans 3:2, we find that Paul is not talking about the canon or the scriptures as a collection of books. Paul is naming the advantages that the Jews had over the Gentiles (Rom 3:1). The Gentiles knew God’s will through the dictates written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15); the Jews, however, enjoyed the great advantage over the Gentiles in that they received “oracles” from God. The word translated “oracles” or “utterances” (Greek, logia) most certainly includes Sacred Scripture, but it is not restricted to Scripture. It can also include God’s unwritten directions as well (Num. 24:3, 16; Ps. 105:19; Isa. 30:10-11; 1 Pet. 4:11). These unwritten instructions, like the written ones, were also a great advantage that the Jews enjoyed and the Gentiles lacked . . . Romans 3:2 is not giving carte blanche authority to the Jews in perpetuity to determine what is and is not canonical for the Old Testament. Whatever advantages the Jews possessed, Christian possess it as well, and the Old Testament Scripture is not exclusively their Scripture but our Scripture as well. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18); that authority includes province over the Old Testament canon.
Notes for the Above
[20] Josephus (Antiquities, 18, 16), Hippolytus (Refutation 9, 29), Origen (Against Celsus 1, 49; Commentary on Matthew 17, 35), and Jerome (Commentary on Matthew 22:31-32). Some scholars dispute this claiming that the early Fathers were dependent upon the misunderstanding of Josephus. However, two key Fathers (Origen and Jerome) show no indication of dependence upon Jewish communities, and both indicated the belief that the Sadducees only accepted the Torah. For an excellent discussion on this see, Lee McDonald’s The Formation of the Biblical Canon: Volume 1: The Old Testament: Its Authority and Canonicity (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 256.
[21] The Qumran community didn’t publish a canon, and there is no discussion about which books were Sacred Scripture and which were not. The “canon” of Quman is little more than educated guesses. However, it is generally understood that the Qumran community accepted a larger group of sacred texts. See Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Philip Davies (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press), 164-165.
[22] Mishnah, Yadayim 3:5, et al. See William Osterley’s The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching, and Contents (New York: Fleming Revell Company, 1914), 170-171.
Source for the above: Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (rev ed.; El Cajon: Catholic Answers Press, 2017), pp. 31-33