Romans 3: Salvation Through Faith in Christ. Paul ended chapter 2 by saying an unbelieving Jew is not a real Jew, but a believing Gentile is a real Jew. He also declared that physical circumcision counts for little because real circumcision is that of the heart. The natural response of most Jews, believing or unbelieving, would have been," That is not fair! God gave us the Mosaic Law and the covenant of circumcision.
It is not right for God to suddenly change things." So Paul picks up his discussion in chapter 3 with that objection, creating a dialogue with his fictional opponent, an unbelieving Jew. In this dialogue, Paul presents point five of his great argument," God has not been unfair to the Jews in bestowing grace and salvation on the Gentiles." Martin Luther made chapter 3 of Romans one of the most famous chapters of the entire Bible.
Although we should not elevate this chapter above any other chapter of Romans, it does contain vital Christian truths. However, modern preachers who deliver a supposed gospel message frequently turn to chapter 3 of Romans and start preaching from there. They act as though chapter 2 of Romans, with its important teaching about works, does not even exist. In contrast, when the early Christians preached the gospel, they looked at the totality of Scripture.
They in no way minimized the message of grace presented in chapter 3 of Romans. Yet neither did they minimize the message about works in chapter 2 of Romans. And furthermore, when reading chapter 3 of Romans, the early Christians paid close attention to its context. The conflict Paul discusses in this chapter is not between faith and Christian works.
The conflict is between faith and the works of the Mosaic Law, as we have discussed, the primary issue Paul is addressing in Romans, is the claim by the Judaizers that the Gentiles had to be circumcised and come under the Mosaic Law to be saved. In chapter 3, Paul further disproves the claims of the Judaizers by introducing or developing the following four key points: Point 1: All mankind lies guilty before God and needs salvation. Point 2: The Law of Moses is unable to save or justify Jews, let alone Gentiles.
Neither circumcision nor obedience to the law of Moses are necessary any longer. Point 3. All humans, Jews and Gentiles alike, are saved and justified only by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Point 4. God has not been unfair to the Jews in bestowing grace and salvation on the Gentiles. Romans 3, verses 1 and 2, starting with verse 1, the opponent says," So then, what advantage has the Jew?
Or what profit is there in circumcision?" Paul begins this chapter by using the interlocutory style of writing, in which he dialogues with his fictional opponent. It is Paul's opponent who raises the questions in this verse. Chrysostom writes," Paul has set aside both circumcision and the very name of Jew." Accordingly, the objection is now raised. If these things are of no use, why did God call the Jewish nation in the first place? Why was circumcision ever given?
These are both valid questions, and Paul answers them in verse 2, saying much in every way, chiefly because the oracles of God were entrusted to them. Paul replies," Much in every way." Through the centuries, God blessed the Jews with many benefits. He delivered them from slavery in Egypt, gave them the law, and settled them in the Promised Land. So long as they were faithful, God blessed them and protected them from their enemies.
Yet Paul says their chief blessing was that they were entrusted with the oracles of God, the writings of the Old Testament. Theodoret comments," God chose their ancestors, and he freed them from the bondage of the Egyptians. Through all types of miracles, He made the Jews the wonder of nations. He gave them the law for their assistance, and He set His prophets over them. This is what Paul means by much in every way. But Paul chooses not to enumerate all these things.
Rather, he is content to mention only the establishment of the law. He says," Chiefly, because the oracles of God were committed to them. For this was the highest honor given to them. The other nations possessed only the knowledge that nature gives. Yet the Jews not only had natural knowledge, but they also had the gift of the law. Through these oracles of God, the Jews had the advantage in every way over the Gentiles. Origen describes some of these advantages.
So far as it can be accomplished among mortals, God bestowed upon the Jews only those things that would be useful to them. And he withheld from the Jews everything that would be of spiritual disadvantage to them. For this reason, they had no gymnastic contests, no dramas, and no horse races. There were no women among them who sold their beauty to anyone who wished to have sexual relations without offspring. For such conduct, casts contempt on the nature of human reproduction.
Also, they enjoyed another great advantage. Almost from the day of each of their births, every Jew was privileged to be instructed in the immortality of the soul, in the existence of a court of justice in the hereafter, and in the rewards in store for those who have lived righteous lives. God's faithfulness is not affected by man's unbelief. In verse 3, the opponent asks," But what if some did not believe?
Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?" Paul's fictional opponent is asking these questions, but his point is not clear. Paul had stated earlier that an unbelieving Jew is not a real Jew at all. Instead, he is the same as an unbelieving Gentile. So perhaps the opponent is suggesting that if God does not save all Jews, then He is being unfaithful to His promise to Abraham. Paul responds in verse 4," God forbid.
Yes, let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written that you may be justified in your words, and may prevail when you are judged." Paul answers his opponent with the words," God forbid!" God has in no way been unfaithful to His promise to Abraham. He had promised Abraham," In your seed, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." So God is not being unfaithful to His Word by extending salvation to the Gentiles.
Rather, He is being faithful to what He had promised Abraham. He had promised that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abraham. Furthermore, despite the unbelief of most Jews, God has not withdrawn from them the invitation to receive salvation and to be part of His kingdom. Ambrosiaster writes," God has not been so offended on account of the unbelieving Jews that he will refuse to grant life everlasting to the ones who believe. For he promised this gift to those who have faith in Christ.
The unbelieving Jews have made themselves unworthy of the promises. But in doing so, they have not injured those who believe. Therefore, Paul commends the believing Jews, for they are not to blame, because their fellow Jews have rejected faith in Christ. Let God be true, but every man a liar, man's response to God does not affect God's fidelity. God will always be true to His Word.
Theodoret comments, Paul says," Let us suppose for argument's sake that not even one man offered the praise and honor due to God." Let us suppose that all were ungrateful, for this is what Paul means by the words" every man a liar." Even if that were the case, why would this take away from God's glory? The blessed apostle made the same observation in another place. If we are faithless, he remains faithful. He cannot deny Himself.
And here Paul adds the testimony of Scripture, as it is written, that you might be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged. Those who did not believe by no means invalidated the divine mercies. No, for even if all mankind should prove ungrateful towards Him, their ingratitude could not diminish the glory of God, that you may be justified in your words. Chrysostom writes," What Paul says is something like this: I do not actually mean that no one believed.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, suppose that all were unbelieving." Here he is following the line of reasoning of his opponent. Well, if that were the case, God would be justified that much more. Many Christians today imagine that" justify" is a special theological word. However," justify" was an ordinary Greek word that simply meant to declare righteous or to vindicate. Chrysostom explains this as he continues his argument. Imagine there were a trial and an examination were made.
On one side, there were the things God had done for the Jews. On the other side were the things the Jews had done for God. Clearly, the victory would lie with God. All the right would be on his side. In the end, the Jews had done nothing to benefit God, while He had done many things to benefit them. So God is the one who is justified or declared righteous in this matter. In the Septuagint, justify is nearly always used in a judicial setting, both civil and criminal.
In a criminal case, when a person was justified, it meant he was found not guilty. In a civil dispute between two parties, the party who was justified was the one who was declared to be in the right. The following passage from Exodus illustrates the meaning of decay:" You shall abstain from every unjust thing, you shall not slay the innocent and the righteous, and you shall not justify the wicked for bribes." In other words, you shall not declare a wicked person to be righteous.
Also, if anyone sins against his neighbor, and he comes and swears before the altar in this house, then you will hear from heaven and act and judge your servants to recompense the transgressor by bringing his way back on his own head. And you will justify the righteous, rewarding him according to his righteousness. Romans 3:5-8 God has the right to punish sin opponent verse 5. But if our unrighteousness displays the righteousness of God, what will we say? God is unjust who inflicts wrath.
Paul continues to carry on this dispute with his Jewish opponent. Origen explains that the opponent is claiming," If our unrighteousness reveals God's righteousness, then God is unjust to punish us. Because our sins have highlighted God's own faithfulness, He has no grounds to be wrathful." Chrysostom rephrases the opponent's words as follows: A man may say," Why should I be punished? After all, I have been the cause of God's victory because of the wrong I did to Him." I speak in the manner of men.
It should be noted that the early Christians all read the second clause in this verse," God is unjust who inflicts wrath," as an assertion, not a question. The opponent is asserting God is unrighteous for inflicting wrath. That is why Paul immediately adds," I speak in the manner of men." Paul inserts this parenthetical clause to clarify that this is the opponent's assertion, not his own.
Theodoret explains," Here the Holy Apostle introduces an argument through the person of his opponent, for it was necessary for Paul to address the objections raised by others." Yet Paul also shows its absurdity by immediately disavowing it. Paul is saying," It is not I who speak in this manner. Rather, I have only stated the position of others." This is what he means by" I speak as a man." Chrysostom adds," Note Paul's apostolic reverence.
For after saying," God is unrighteous, who takes vengeance," he adds," I speak as a man." In other words, if anybody were to argue in the way men reason.
Romans 3:6," God forbid, for then how will God judge the world?" Paul again emphatically responds," God forbid, just because our sins cause God's perfection to stand out more clearly by way of contrast, this in no way excuses our sin." Furthermore, if we followed the opponent's argument to its logical conclusion, how could God judge the world and punish the wicked?
To illustrate the opponent's argument, imagine the following scene: a man has just been convicted of violently assaulting several people and robbing a bank. He stands before the judge for sentencing. With his head held high, he tells the judge," Your honor, worthless people like me actually do society a favor." That is because no one would be able to appreciate the honest, upright people in this city if it were not for offenders like me. My criminal conduct makes the law-abiding citizens look good in contrast.
The children of this city would have no understanding of goodness if they did not have criminals like me to show them what evil looks like. Therefore, Your Honor, it would be unjust to punish me, for I have done society a favor. Such a line of argumentation is obviously ludicrous, but it is essentially what the opponent is arguing. That is why Paul immediately dismisses it.
All God's judgments are righteous, as the psalmist tells us," You are righteous, O Lord, and your judgments are upright." Opponent 3:7:" For if through my falsehood the truth of God abounds even more to His glory, why am I still judged as a sinner?" Not satisfied with Paul's response, the opponent presents the same argument in different words. He argues that his falsehoods have brought glory to God because they highlight God's truthfulness.
Since God has benefited from the opponent's falsehoods, why should God turn around and condemn Him as a sinner? Theodoret comments," It is one of the most absurd things to speak in such a manner, for the sentence of God is just. To be sure, it would be extremely unjust if those who truly advanced God's glory ended up suffering vengeance from Him and were awaiting eternal punishment. But this is ridiculous reasoning, for my own unworthiness can in no way advance the glory due to God for His kindness.
3:8," May we not instead say," Let us do evil, that good may come?" For so we are blasphemed, and some assert that we say this. Their condemnation is just. Here Paul is saying, if we are going to keep arguing from this erroneous proposition, we might as well say," Let us do evil. So good may come from it." Clement of Alexandria comments some claim that we say," Let us do evil, that good may come from it." Such an argument is justly condemned.
These are the kind of people who, when reading Scripture, twist the meaning of it by changing the tone of their voice, or by changing accent marks and the like. They bend the meaning to fit their own desires.
Malachi speaks of such ones," You have provoked God with your words." But you say," How have we provoked Him?" In that you say," Everyone who does evil is a pleasing object in the sight of the Lord, and he takes pleasure in such ones." About a century after Paul wrote the words above, the pagan critic Celsus reproached Christians with the following accusation: Let us hear what kind of persons these Christians invite to their religion.
They say that everyone who is a sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and basically everyone who is deplorable, such a person will receive the kingdom of God. Indeed, Christians did invite such people to the kingdom of God. However, they also taught that such people had to leave their sins and spiritual ignorance behind them. Nevertheless, Celsus' criticism shows how unbelievers were twisting Christian teaching for the purpose of ridiculing Christians, just as Paul said they were.
Ambrosiaster comments, their opponents brought up this accusation. Because the apostles proclaimed the forgiveness of sins, their opponents accused them of saying that we should sin so that good would result from it. Paul says this is blasphemy and is a total misrepresentation of the doctrine of God. The doctrine of faith does not promote sin, for it teaches that God will judge sinners. Instead, the message of faith provides a cure for sin.
Having once recovered their spiritual health, men can live by God's law and sin no longer. Although this ancient accusation was both false and absurd, Martin Luther counseled something almost as preposterous in a letter to his colleague, Philip Melanchthon. Luther told him," If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true grace, not a fictitious one." If grace is true, you must bear a true sin, not fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners.
Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For He is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here, we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness. Rather, as Peter says, we look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. What Luther is saying is just as much a perversion of Paul's teaching as what the ancient pagans were saying.