Introduction
If you feel the sermons lately have been quite condemning, you are right.
This is because in this first section of the book of Romans Paul’s point is to show us the need for God’s righteousness.
Why does man need God’s righteousness?
Because we are all universally condemned.
First, the Gentiles need God’s righteousness because they are condemned (Rom 1:18-32).
Why are the Gentiles condemned?
Because God has made Himself known to them and they are without excuse. While they know God, they did not honor God or give thanks to Him.
They did not acknowledge Him as God.
And they continue in their rebellious and idolatrous ways.
Therefore, God gave them up to impurity, to dishonorable passions, to a debased mind.
Living in our present day and age, we are seeing this unfold before our very eyes moment by moment.
But what about people who know God’s laws and have a special relationship with Him?
Surely they will escape the condemnation that the pagan Gentiles experience.
Not at all.
Because even though they know God’s laws, they too break the law.
The Gentiles break God’s laws, and so they are condemned; the Jews also break God’s laws, so they too are condemned.
But the fact is that there are also religious people who know God’s Word, and claim to be Christians, attend church and perhaps have even gone through baptism.
But they have taken God’s advantage to them for granted.
They really have no real relationship with God to speak of.
They do not have any desire to obey God. They are self-deceived, thinking that they are true followers of God but at the end of the day, Jesus will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
The only ones who are righteous before God are those who perfectly keep the law, which, as we have seen, is no one.
This kind of message of universal condemnation is unacceptable to people.
People will not sit around to listen to you telling them that they are sinners and are condemned.
They want to listen to the message of someone like Norman Vincent Peale who preaches the gospel of the power of positive thinking. And this kind of message definitely does not fall into that category.
He says we need to stop making people feel guilty and bad about themselves by preaching about sin.
I. First Objection: What Advantage Has the Jew? (Romans 3:1-2)
Regarding this first objection, you may ask: What does that have to do with me?
I am not a Jew and I am not concerned about the advantage the Jews have.
So let me phrase it another way for our own application. We may not ask this question that a Jew may ask.
But a similar question may be: What is the use of my religious practices? That would be similar to what a Jew might ask Paul.
For example, what are some religious practices people carry out?
So when you tell people that attending church doesn’t save, baptism doesn’t save, how do they respond? They may say: What value then is there to doing these things?
Now Paul answers in v. 2 that there is a certain profitability, and it is regarding the oracles of God.
It is of value if it brings you into contact with the Word of God.
The question we must ask is, this church that you are attending, this religion that you are engaging in, does it bring you squarely face to face with the Word of God?
Do you have to read it and do you have to accept what it says?
You can be attending a church, but we know that not all churches view the Bible as authoritative and sufficient.
But I can say for our church, we seek to conform our members and attenders to what the Bible says. But if the Bible is not sufficient or authoritative, then religious rituals will be needed.
Martin Luther as an illustration
Luther is a very good illustration from church history.
He was 22 yrs old and in 1505 he entered the monastery.
Five years later, he embarked on a 1,000km pilgrimage, walking through harsh winter, over the Alps, down the spine of Italy with the final destination being Rome, where the Vatican City is located.
He visited St. Peter’s Basilica which contained the “holy relics” and every relic he sees would supposedly be able to shorten his time in purgatory.
Well, not everybody is as fortunate as Luther to be able to go to the Vatican, so another way for the souls of their loved ones to spring out of purgatory is by giving money. A coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.
But he grew increasingly dissatisfied with these rituals, especially when he was tasked to lecture on the Bible at the University of Wittenberg.
This gives Luther an opportunity to finally encounter the oracles of God.
And he realized from reading and studying the Bible that he had no advantage whatsoever in spite of being a monk, having gone on a pilgrimage, but the only way he found out that was so, was through the oracles of God.
The only advantage he had was that his role as a monk brought him to a close encounter with the Bible.
II. Second Objection: What if Some Were Unfaithful? (Romans 3:3-4)
But what if some were unfaithful?
That’s a valid objection because some indeed were unfaithful, by that it means that some did not believe.
Even though God entrusted His words to them, they did not trust Him. They did not put their faith in God.
But just because they were faithless, does that mean God is no longer faithful to keep His promises to His people?
Another way to look at it is: Is the unbelief of the Jewish people evidence that God has been unfaithful?
This kind of thinking was very common in the OT: that it didn’t matter how a Jewish person lived, because they were God’s covenant people; it was God’s obligation to accept them because they were Jews.
This can also be how some religious people think.
That you just have to do a little bit more good than bad to get to heaven.
And when it is all said and done, God will have to accept me, because after all, isn’t He supposed to be a good God?
If not, then He is the one who is unfaithful.
That it doesn’t matter how I live my life, but I have prayed the sinner’s prayer, I have been baptised, I am a member of a church and therefore I have a guaranteed ticket to heaven.
What is Paul’s answer to that kind of conclusion?
V. 4. By no means!
Do not allow your logical reasoning to become unbiblical.
God will remain faithful even if the Jews are unfaithful. And God’s condemnation of the Jews is not evidence that He is somehow unfaithful. Let God be true though everyone were a liar.
Everytime our minds are tempted to think that way, to cast some blame on God or to think that He is somehow not good to us or unfaithful to us, we need to say “by no means!” to our soul.
Paul quotes David’s confession in Ps 51.
David was called out for his sin and when he was confronted for his adultery and murder, he confessed his sins and agreed that God is justified in His words and prevails in judgment. This is not just something for unbelievers to do but also for believers. When you read God’s Word and His Word condemns your sin, you need to agree with God’s assessment. We have no place to argue with God.
Rather, we have to humbly say that God is true and his assessment is right, and what I need to do is to confess.
As a result, God’s truthfulness is magnified against the backdrop of the blackness of our lives.
If this is not our humble response, we will be absolutely offended.
One of the reasons why Paul spends so much time on the universal condemnation of mankind in these first three chapters is to show up the character of God that has been maligned ever since the fall.
We have to accept God’s assessment and there is no other way. And that is the way God gets the glory.
But once again, that can seem to be really offensive. It almost seems as if God is using my sinfulness.
III. Third Objection: Isn’t God Unrighteous in Condemning Us? (Romans 3:5-8)
That was where we left off last week.
So far, tracing Paul’s arguments has been quite straightforward.
But as we shall see, in the next few verses, it may be a bit challenging to follow Paul’s thoughts.
Remember that we compare Paul’s letter to the Romans to Mount Everest, where when you get higher and higher, the air becomes thin and it makes breathing difficult.
We are going to encounter some of that here in these verses.
What seems to be the key to unlocking the understanding of this passage is that Paul will make very brief comments here which he will elaborate more on later on.
Because our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, then isn’t God unrighteous in inflicting wrath on us?
A. How Can God Judge Helpless Sinners? (Romans 3:5)
In other words, if Paul has shown that the Jews were utterly unable to obey the law, and therefore they are unrighteous.
And if through their unrighteousness God shows His righteousness, isn’t God using man’s unrighteousness to show His righteousness.
How is that right?
If man is utterly unable to obey God, it would be unjust for God to punish them. It is like blaming a blind person for not being able to see.
If the Jews can do nothing to contribute to their own salvation, and they are fundamentally corrupt, then God would be unrighteous to inflict His wrath on them.
B. First Unacceptable Conclusion: God Can’t Judge Anyone (Romans 3:6)
That would be a very logical conclusion, which is why Paul adds, “I speak in a human way.”
He is clarifying here that he is not speaking as an apostle, but as what a rational human being may reason.
That may seem like sound reasoning according to human logic, but notice once again Paul says in v. 6, “By no means!” They have reasoned in a humanly logical way but it is beyond what Scripture teaches.
Then he presses the logic to its utmost, but absolutely unbiblical conclusion: for then how could God judge the world?
But as I mentioned, Paul will elaborate on this point later on in Romans 9:19ff.
If human beings have no ability to do what is right, let’s not talk just about the Jews, how then can God judge the world? If the objection is correct, then God could not possibly judge the Gentile world.
What the objector is doing is to absolve himself of all responsibility.
“It is not my fault that I am such a sinner. I can’t help it."
But the most insidious accusation then is to claim that God is somehow unrighteous then to inflict His wrath on sinners. God receives the blame. Once again, the one who is wrong is God. God is not good, He is not right. He is not fair.
At the end of the day, man is not willing to accept the conclusion that he is responsible for his sin and that his sin must be judged.
C. How Can God Condemn Sinners if Their Sin Brings Him Glory? (Romans 3:7)
The objection stated in v. 5 is restated in v. 7. “But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory,”
Once again, we see Paul contrasting the Jew’s faithlessness and God’s faithfulness, God’s truthfulness and man’s lie.
Here we see it again.
Man’s lie is contrasted with God’s truth. God’s truth refers to God’s faithfulness and truthfulness in judging sin which is illustrated by the “lie” of the Jews, represented by the “I.”
Our lies actually enhance God’s truthfulness and therefore enhance the glory of God. Against the backdrop of man’s sinfulness, God’s truth shines all the brighter. There is no objection here.
The objection is in the last part: Why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
Once again, if the Jews have no ability to perfectly keep the law, how can God find fault? I am a sinner, and I was born a sinner. I can’t help but sin, so how can God condemn me?
If Paul already shows that I am utterly unable to obey God, how can God condemn me for something that I am utterly unable to do?
D. Second Unacceptable Conclusion: Therefore, Do Evil That Good May Come (3:8)
The opponents slander Paul by accusing him of teaching them that they should do evil that good may come.
If every unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, then be more unrighteous.
If every lie shows the truthfulness of God for His glory, then tell more lies!
This is taking the logic too far.
It may be logical to think that God’s grace covers all my sins, but to take that as a license to continue to sin is to take the logic to an unbiblical conclusion.
This is called antinomianism (No law).
Once again, Paul will elaborate on this in chapter 6.
How shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
These opponents are trying to slander Paul. undermine Paul’s teaching about the gospel. They are accusing Paul of teaching an antinomian gospel because he taught that man is unable to keep the law of God.
The Jews should then continue to do evil so that God’s electing grace may shine brighter for His glory.
For distorting the gospel that Paul preaches, these opponents should be condemned. Those who preach another gospel ought to be condemned.
Conclusion
God says that we are all condemned.
This is offensive to the ears of many and therefore, they throw up these objections.
At the end of the day it is to absolve themselves of any responsibility. It is not their fault. Their creative minds will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why they are not responsible. They blame their upbringing, their background, their culture, their socio-economic background, etc.
Or they apply God’s standards to everybody else except themselves.
What is the right response?
To say that God is right in judging us.
To examine our own heart and no one else's, and to be like David and to bow in humble contrition and confess that we have sin against the Almighty God.
Reflection Questions:
How do we react to Paul’s teaching of universal condemnation?
In what ways have we excused our sins away?
How then should we respond to God’s just condemnation of our sin?
Comments