Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson VIII)

Charles Hodge also notes the impact of such thinking by Paul’s opponents on the doctrine that would be adopted by the community of believers in Rome. Hodge says: “Such is the apostle’s argument against the grounds of confidence on which the Jews rested their hope of exemption from condemnation. ‘Our unfaithfulness serves to commend the faithfulness of God. Therefore we ought not to be punished.’ According to this reasoning, says Paul, the worse we are, the better: for, the more wicked we are, the more conspicuous will be the mercy of God in our pardon; we may, therefore, do evil that good may come.’ By reducing the reasoning of the Jews to a conclusion shocking to the moral sense, he thereby refutes it. The Apostle thereby recognizes the authority of the intuitive moral judgments of our nature, and thus teaches us that those truths which are believed on their own evidence, as soon as presented to the mind, should be regarded as fixed points in all reasoning; and that to attempt to go beyond these intuitive judgments, is to unsettle the foundation of all faith and knowledge, and to open the door to universal skepticism. Any doctrine, therefore, which is immoral in its tendency, or which conflicts with the first principles of morals, must be false, no matter how plausible the arguments may be in its favor.”¹

The great British orator Charales Spurgeon comments: “If all the good in the world could result from a single evil act, we have no right to do it. We must never do evil with the hope of advancing God’s cause. If God chooses to turn evil into good, as He often does, that is no reason why we should do evil. There is no such justification for sin. The murder of Christ at Calvary has brought the greatest possible benefit to us; yet it was a high crime against God, the greatest of all crimes, when man turned against God and killed the Son of God.”² In other words, what the Jews in Jerusalem meant for evil, by having Jesus crucified by the Romans, though it was wrong, God turned it into good for the whole world, much the same as what Joseph declared to his brothers, “You meant to do me harm, but God meant it for good — so that it would come about as it is today, with many people’s lives being saved.”³ So it wasn’t a case of the Jews doing something horrible to force God’s goodness out into the open, but that God was able to take what they openly meant for evil and transform it into something beautiful for the whole world to see. This is the story of our lives.

F. F. Bruce contributes this to our understanding of what Paul says here: “There is a prima facie clash between this answer to ‘Are we Jews any better off?’ and the answer in verse 2; ‘Then what advantage has the Jew?’—‘Much in every way.’ But that earlier answer had reference to the privileges inherited by Jews as members of the elect nation; ‘No, not at all,’ relates to their standing before God. Privileges or no privileges, Jews and Gentiles stand equally in need of His grace. N. A. Dahl omits ‘No, not at all,’ and takes the preceding question to mean ‘What do we hold before us as a defence?’ (answer: ‘Nothing; we are all alike held fast by sin’).⁴”⁵

Jewish scholar David Stern adds: “Why, then, are Jews not entirely advantaged? Because, as Paul has already said, all people, Jews, and Gentiles alike, are controlled by sin. True, having God’s very words is an advantage Jews do have (vv. 1–2); and the infallibility of God’s promises, even if no one believes them (vv. 3–4), is another. But the same Word of God, the Tanakh, reminds us of the Bad News that everyone sins, Jews included (see also vv. 22–23); in this regard Jews have no advantage. As Paul later explains, the Torah lacks power in itself to change people’s lives (8:3). The commentator C. K. Barrett, although he translates “ou pantôs” “by no means,” is correct in writing, “The advantage of the Jew is real, but it is an advantage which is (or may at any moment become) at the same time a disadvantage. It consists in knowing (out of Scripture) that before God all talk of ‘advantages’ is folly and sin.”⁶

Verses 10-12: As the Scriptures say, “There is no one doing what is right, not even one.⁷ There is no one who understands. There is no one who is trying to know God. They have all turned away from Him, and now they are of no use to anyone. I say again, there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Now the Apostle turns to the Scriptures to make his point. If these Messianic Jewish leaders in Rome were not inclined to accept Paul’s admonition based on his reputation, certainly they would respect the Word of God. He gives a paraphrase of what David said in one of his teaching Psalms. In context it reads this way: “A brutish fool tells himself, ‘There isn’t any God.’ Such people are depraved, all their deeds are vile, not one of them does what is good. God looks out from heaven upon the human race to see if even one is wise if even one seeks God. Every one of them is unclean, altogether corrupt; not one of them does what is good, not a single one.”⁸

Bible scholar Paul Herring cautions the reader to note that verse one doesn’t just say there is no one who does good, that’s only the last part of the verse. He writes: “How does the verse start out? It is the fool who says there is no God – it is the fool who is wicked, and there is not one person who says this, who is good.” To make his point further, Herring says: “Look carefully at verse 4: ‘Do all the workers of wickedness not know, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord?’ This further emphasizes that those who do not do good are the wicked. In other words, the statement is not universal; there are righteous (non-wicked) who do good. We then see in verse 5 that they are in fact many who are righteous.”⁹

This blanket condemnation on mankind’s misconduct was not new, it was expressed as far back as the days of the patriarch Job: “No one can make something clean from something so dirty.”¹⁰ Job’s friend Eliphaz made the same point: “People cannot really be pure. They cannot be more right than God!”¹¹ And by the time of Jeremiah the prophet, we read: “Nothing can hide its deceit as well as the human heart. And who really understands why it is so critically ill?”¹²

When Jesus taught on the subject of man’s chronic sinfulness, He too makes the point: “All sinful ideas begin in the mind.”¹³ And the Apostle Paul tells the Ephesians that they too were once part of such a hopeless state of sinful decay until God in His mercy and grace brought them salvation.¹⁴ But that redemption did not make everyone immediately perfect. They must have standards to be measured by and guidelines to follow. Paul tells Timothy that for that reason the law was given. But he notes: “We know that the law is good provided one uses it in the way it was intended to be used.”¹⁵ In other words, the law was designed to give directions, not to become a roadblock. However, Jewish leaders of the church in Rome were doing that with the Gospel of Christ when it came to the Gentiles.

So the question arises, was God silent all this time? Once Noah’s flood wiped out all but his own family, were they left without directions? The argument has already been made that signs of God’s existence and power had been demonstrated in the skies and on earth from the beginning. But David tells us: “The Lord looks down from heaven to see if there is anyone who is wise, anyone who looks to Him for help. But everyone has gone the wrong way.”¹⁶ This no doubt led Solomon to explain: “Knowledge begins with reverence and respect for the Lord, but stubborn fools hate wisdom and refuse to learn.”¹⁷ But it wasn’t a one-way street, Solomon made clear God’s offer through Wisdom: “I wanted to tell you everything I knew and give you all my knowledge, but you didn’t listen to my advice and teaching.”¹⁸

It appears that Isaiah was making the same point that Paul emphasizes here: “These are people who refuse to learn anything. So God, their Maker, will not sympathize with them or be kind to them.”¹⁹ In other words, after God has done everything necessary to get the truth to people, if they still refuse to accept what He shows them, then He will not pat them on the head and say, “Okay, that’s alright, you’re not really that bad.” Salvation is not a game to God. He extracted a heavy price from His Son to pay for that salvation. Yet He will not force it on anyone who is unwilling to believe.

It becomes a matter of desire. What is it that a person really wants in life? Are they satisfied with an everyday form of mere existence, or do they want more? Jeremiah had that same question, and the Lord told the Prophet what He observed: “It is because my people are foolish — they do not know me; they are stupid children, without understanding, wise when doing evil; but they don’t know how to do good.”²⁰ And when the prophet Hosea found himself facing a similar problem, God had a similar answer: “My people are wasting away because they lack knowledge. You priests have refused to learn so I will refuse to let you be priests for me.”²¹

When Jesus came as a personal messenger from God, He too found Himself perplexed by the way His message was received. He told His followers: “I use stories to teach the people: They look, but they don’t really see anything. They listen, but they don’t really hear or understand.”²² So it appears that even by Paul’s day things had not changed much. People were only listening to what they wanted to hear and only assimilated what pleased them. The wise man Job put his finger on the problem way back in his day when he said that some people had reached this conclusion: “Who is the All-Powerful that we need to serve Him? What difference does it make whether or not we pray to Him?”²³ In other words, so far they had gotten along just fine without God in their lives, so why should they start including Him now? Why go to church? Why read their Bible? Why pray? They may even look around and say, “It doesn’t seem to have helped those who call themselves Christians, so why do I need it?”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson VII)

Verses 8-9: Why not say, “Let’s all sin, so that good will come from it.” (Some people slanderously claim I’ve made such a statement!) They will get the punishment they deserve. What about it then? Are we Jews better than the people who are not Jews? Not at all! I have already said that Jews and the people who are not Jews are all sinners.

Up to this point in his letter, Paul has shown the need of salvation for Jews and Gentiles. Now, he embarks on his explanation for the universal need of salvation for all mankind. Unfortunately, he has to do so defensively, because his teaching of grace over law was misinterpreted to mean that God is pleased when we do wrong so His grace when applied, will receive applause and make Him look like a benevolent God. In fact, later on in this letter, Paul will say: “The law was brought in so that more people would sin the way Adam did. But where sin increased, there was even more of God’s grace.”¹ Nevertheless, Paul makes it clear in most of his letters that one never glories in their sins, but are to glory in the cross because it meets the need for forgiveness of those sins.²

Most of all, Paul wanted to expose the claim made by many Jews that they were to be treated differently because before they became believers in Christ through grace, they were already God’s children under the law. We see this attitude reflected on the occasion when Jesus was invited to a meal at Simon the Pharisee’s house, and a woman with a bad reputation showed up and began to wash Jesus’ feet with her tears and anoint them with expensive perfume. When the host Simon saw this, he smugly said to himself: “If this man were a real prophet, he would know that the woman who is touching him is a sinner!”³ In other words, Simon is reasoning that if he, as an authentic Jew, did not see fit to wash the feet of this visitor being hailed as the Messiah, then Jesus certainly shouldn’t allow someone so low as this woman to come in and do so. Paul saw this same attitude in the Jewish leaders of the community of believers in Rome. If they did not feel that as Jews God could be honored by what they did, then how could the Gentiles believe He would pay any attention to them?⁴ Paul wanted them to know that at the foot of the cross we are all treated equally.

Two early church scholars ask questions in an attempt to clarify the words of Paul. Ambrosiaster asks: “Whether forgiveness encourages sin?” He then explains: “The matter was raised by opponents, as if this were the meaning of the preaching of the forgiveness of sins—that they should do evil and good would come of it. That is, they should sin so that by forgiving their sins God should appear to be good, according to what has just been said. Paul calls this blasphemy and rejects it as a bad interpretation of God’s teaching. Faith is not meant to encourage people to sin by preaching that God will ultimately be vindicated. Rather, it gives sinners a remedy so that having recovered their health they may live under the law of God and not sin again.”⁵

The another early church scholar asks: “If there were no lies would God appear to be truer?” He then says: “This is aimed at the Carpocratians,⁶ who are the worst of heretics and Gentiles to boot. The text is directed at those who say that unless they sin, God’s grace will not abound, and unless they tell lies God will not appear to be truthful. The Apostle answers them by saying, that if what they think is true then they should not be judged as sinners. But given that vengeance is wreaked on sinners, Paul says that they have not thought correctly.”⁷ Then Pelagius gives his conclusion to what Paul is attempting to point out here: “Paul finds no reason for saying that the Jews are better than others.… Both Jews and Gentiles are under sin—something we not only deduce by reason but also corroborate by the witness of the Jews themselves.”⁸

Reformist John Calvin notes that in his day accusations were being made by the opponents to the Reformation similar to those hurled against Paul by some in Rome. Calvin writes: “Since Paul speaks so reverently of the secret judgments of God, it is a wonder that his enemies should have fallen into such wantonness as to slander him: but there has never been so much reverence and seriousness displayed by God’s servants as to be sufficient to check impure and venomous tongues. It is not then a new thing, that adversaries in our day pile on so many false accusations so as to make our doctrine detestable, which we ourselves know to be the pure gospel of Christ, and all the angels, as well as the faithful, are our witnesses. Nothing can be imagined more monstrous than what we read here was laid to the charge of Paul, to the end, that his preaching might be rendered hateful to the inexperienced. Let us then confront this evil, when the ungodly abuse the truth which we preach by their defamation: and let us not cease, on this account, constantly to defend the genuine confession of it, inasmuch as it has sufficient power to crush and to dissipate their falsehoods. Let us, at the same time, according to the Apostle’s example, oppose, as much as we can, all malicious stories, so that the mean-spirited and dispirited may not, without some opposition, speak evil of our Creator.”⁹

John Bengel writes that this epistle was principally written for the purpose of Paul’s confuting those who maintained that the righteousness of God depends strictly [absolutely] on let us sin without fear so good may come. The same phrase occurs in the Greek Septuagint text of Jeremiah 17:6. Those calumniators¹⁰ mean to say this: Good is at hand, ready to come; but evil should prepare the way for it to the glory of God. That is those who do evil, or even say that we ought to do evil, in order that good may come. Bengel says that such unprincipled men endeavor to escape by being misrepresented as unjust [unrighteous], but it will, in a peculiarly [in an especial degree], overtake them. Thus Paul separates, as great a distance as possible, that conclusion and abruptly repels such disputers.¹¹

Adam Clarke echoes the same opinion about opposition in his day to the Gospel as preached by John Wesley. He writes concerning some of the charges made by Paul’s enemies and the Apostle’s response: “This is a most irreverent sentiment, but it follows from your reasoning; it has, indeed, been most injuriously laid to the charge of us Apostles, who preach the doctrine of free pardon, through faith, without the merit of works; and this is so manifest a perversion of the truth that a just punishment may be expected to fall on the propagators of such a slander.”¹²

Clarke then goes on to give a possible response from Paul’s critics and his answer: “[Critics] What then? – After all, have not we Jews a better claim to the privileges of the kingdom of God than the Gentiles? [Apostle Paul]: In no wise – For I have already proven that both Jews and Gentiles are under the guilt of sin; that they are equally unworthy of the blessings of the Messiah‘s kingdom; and that they must both, equally, owe their salvation to the mere mercy of God. From this, to the end of verse 26, the Apostle proceeds to prove his assertion, that both Jews and Gentiles were all under sin; and, that he might enforce the conviction upon the heart of the Jew, he quotes his own Scriptures, which he acknowledged had been given by the inspiration of God, and consequently true.”¹³

Albert Barnes also address the slanderous act against Paul of accusing him of spreading false doctrine. This, of course, would not come from anyone on the outside who did not understand the Scriptures, so it must have come from inside, especially from the Jewish contingent. So Barnes writes: “Why they should affirm this, is not known. It was doubtless, however, some perversion of the doctrines that the Apostles preached. The doctrines which were thus misrepresented and abused, were probably these: the Apostles taught that the sins of people were the occasion of promoting God‘s glory in the plan of salvation. That ‘where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”’¹⁴

Barnes continues: “That God, in the salvation of people, would be glorified just in proportion to the depth and pollution of the guilt which was forgiven. This was true; but how easy was it to misrepresent this as teaching that people ought to sin in order to promote God‘s glory! and instead of stating it as an inference which they drew from the doctrine, to state it as what the apostles actually taught. This is the common mode in which charges are brought against others. People draw an inference themselves, or suppose that the doctrine leads to such an inference, and then charge it on others as what they actually hold and teach. There is one maxim which should never be departed from: ‘That a man is not to be held responsible for the inferences which we may draw from his doctrine; and that he is never to be represented as holding and teaching what we suppose follows from his doctrine.’ He is answerable only for what he avows.”¹⁵

H. A. Ironside also weighs in on this controversy: “Does man’s unrighteousness then prepare the way for God to display His righteousness, and is it a necessity of the case? If so, sin is a part of the divine plan and man cannot be held accountable. But this the Apostle indignantly refutes. God is just. He will judge men for their sins by righteousness. And this could not be if sin were foreordained and per-determined. If the latter were true man might have just cause to complain: ‘If the truth of God has more abounded through my lie for His glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?’ And in that case what was being slanderously reported by some as the teaching of Paul, ‘Let us do evil that good may come,’ would be correct. But all who so plead show themselves deficient in moral principle. Their judgment is just.”¹⁶

Believe it or not, such satire is often displayed when a backslider is given more accolades and praises for returning to the fold because of their rescue from a terrible, sinful life, than those who have remained steadfast and true. Often the story of the Prodigal Son is used as a basis. But that shows a misunderstanding of what Jesus taught. If a person lost their wallet with $500 inside, while at the same time having $10,000 in savings. Does their joy at retrieving their wallet with the money mean that the money on deposit is not worth as much? No! It is simply the joy that comes from anything we value, no matter how little, when it is returned after having been lost.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson VI)

Reformist John Calvin points out that Paul is bringing into the conversation some idea that was going around, not something he considered valid. Calvin writes: “There is, indeed, no doubt that this was an ordinary, anti-intellectual condemnation, as it will presently appear. That’s why Paul could not have pretended he didn’t notice it. But, that no one should think that he expressed the sentiments personally, he assumes that the person [asking the question] would be an uninformed individual. At the same time, by a single expression he touches sharply on human reason; whose work, as he intimates, is ever to bark against the wisdom of God. That’s why he does not say, ‘according to the ungodly,’ but ‘according to mankind,’ or as a man. And thus indeed it is, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes for humans. Yet, at the same time, they possess so much boldness, that they have no fear to oppose God’s mysteries and audaciously to assail what they cannot comprehend. We are, therefore, reminded that if we desire to become capable of understanding them [God’s mysteries], we must especially labor to become freed from our own reason and to give up ourselves, and unreservedly to submit to His word.”¹

Theologian John Bengel speaks about Paul’s quoted satire that we should sin so that God’s righteousness can be more easily seen. That’s why if God takes revenge for our sins, it proves that He is in fact unrighteous. Bengel says that although Paul shows that the Jews have a peculiar advantage [Romans 3:1], this does not prevent them from being called sinners. Someone, according to the principles of human nature, might reason this way: My wickedness is subservient to the Divine glory, and makes it the more conspicuous, as darkness does for light. Therefore, I should not be punished. Bengel then intimates that since the Jews acknowledge the righteousness of Divine judgment regarding the rest of the world; why shouldn’t there be the same ground for judgment for unbelieving Jews?²

Albert Barnes also notes Paul’s confession that he is using human logic here. So he writes that he hears Paul saying: “I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak from what appears to be a case of a human viewpoint, or as would strike the human mind. It does not mean that the language was such as wicked people were accustomed to using; but that the objector expressed a sentiment which to human view would seem to follow from what had been said [by Paul]. This I regard as the language of an objector. It implies a degree of reverence for the character of God, and a seeming unwillingness to state an objection which seemed to be dishonorable to God, but which nevertheless pressed itself so strongly on the mind as to appear irresistible. No way of stating the objection could have been more artful or impressive.”³

Great Christian orator Charles Spurgeon agrees by saying: “Paul spoke as a mere carnal man might be supposed to speak. If ever we are obliged, for the sake of argument, to ask a question which is almost blasphemous, let us do it very guardedly, and say something to show that we really do not adopt the language as our own, just as Paul says, ‘I’m quoting other people.’ If the very sin of man is made to turn to the glory of God, is God unjust in punishing that sin?”⁴ It is often very helpful to qualify such borrowed statements as being from “our opponents” or “our critics.” Spurgeon goes on to say: “God will judge the world, and He does judge the world even now. There are judgments against nations already executed and recorded on the pages of history. If God were unjust, how could He judge the world?”⁵

Theologian Godet has this to say: “From verse 4, it seems to follow that God wills the sin of man for His own glory. But in that case, has He the right to condemn an act from which He reaps advantage, and to be angry with him who commits it? This objection might be put in the mouth of a Jew, who, placing himself at Paul’s view-point, and hearing him say that Israel’s rejection of the Messiah will glorify God’s faithfulness, and contribute to the accomplishment of His plans, judged God highly unjust for being angry with Israel on account of such conduct. Our unbelief would then signify the unbelief of us Jews. But the contrast which prevailed in verse 4 was that between God and every man, and not between Jew and Gentile.”⁶ And Charles Ellicott adds that this kind of thinking comes from how man speaks about men, not how man should speak about God.⁷ Men are capable of using another persons misfortune for their own gain, but God is just and would not consider such injustice.

Reformist John Calvin then adds this clear summary: “For though there are found among men unjust judges, yet this happens, because they usurp authority contrary to law and right, or because they are inconsiderately raised to that [level of] distinction, or because they degenerate from themselves. But there is nothing of this kind with regard to God. Since, then, He is by nature a Judge, it must be that He is just, for He cannot deny Himself. Paul then proves from what is impossible, that God is absurdly accused of unrighteousness; for to Him peculiarly and naturally belongs the work of justly governing the world. And though what Paul teaches extends to the constant government of God, yet I allow that it has a special reference to the last judgment; for then only a real restoration of just order will take place. But if you wish for a direct refutation, by which profane things of this kind may be checked, take this, and say, ‘That it comes not through what unrighteousness is, that God’s righteousness becomes more illustrious, but that our wickedness is so surpassed by God’s goodness, that it is turned to serve an end different from that to which it tends’.”⁸

Albert Barnes raises this thought: “How could this be if it were not right for God to inflict punishment at all? The inference of the objector, therefore, could not be true; though the Apostle does not tell us how it was consistent to inflict punishment for offences from which God took occasion to promote His glory. It may be remarked, however, that God will judge offences, not from what He may do in overruling them, but from the nature of the crime itself. The question is not, what good God may bring out of it, but what does the crime itself deserve? what is the character of the offender? what was his intention? It is not what God may do to overrule the offence when it is committed. The just punishment of the murderer is to be determined by the Law, and by his own defect; and not from any reputation for integrity and uprightness which the judge may manifest on his trial; or from any honor which may accrue to the police for detecting him; or any security which may result to the commonwealth from his execution; or from any honor which the Law may gain as a just law by his condemnation. Nor should any of these facts and advantages which may result from his execution, be pleaded in bar of his condemnation. So it is with the sinner under the divine administration. It is indeed a truth that the wrath of man shall praise God, and that he will take occasion from people‘s wickedness to glorify himself as a just judge and moral governor, but this will be no ground of acquittal for the sinner.⁹”¹⁰

Verse 7: Someone might say, “But if I lie, does that not enhance God’s truth and bring Him even greater glory? So why then am I judged to be a sinner?”

Paul continues attacking this nonsensical argument that our wrongs make God look right. It’s like saying that the harder the test one fails, the more proven is one’s intellect. However, we then cannot automatically assume that the worse our failure, the more admired is the test-maker. But the real problem with such thinking is when the person says that even when flunking the test, one should not be given a failing grade. It is not man’s failure that prompts God to react with superiority, but such failure brings out God’s amazing grace. Not by overlooking our sin, but to extract the necessary punishment for that sin from the price paid by His Son on the cross. We might say that Paul is attacking here what we’ve come to know as: Once in grace, always in grace.

Perhaps they were basing their argument on what happened between Joseph and his brothers down in Egypt. After Joseph had received word that his father Jacob had died, his brothers went to him in fear, thinking that now he would punish them for what they did to him and then lying to father about it. But Joseph had this to say: “Don’t be afraid. I am not God! I have no right to punish you. It is true that you planned to do something bad to me. But really, God was planning good things. God’s plan was to use me to save the lives of many people. And that is what happened. So don’t be afraid. I will take care of you and your children.” Since Joseph said kind things to his brothers, and this made them feel better.¹¹

In other words, Joseph did not see them as sinners because all along God had planned to use their misdeed to promote His good deed of saving the children of Israel. When using this same logic, some could say that we should not think of Judas Iscariot as a traitor because God used him to have Jesus arrested. That would certainly open the door to exonerate the Jewish leaders and Pilate of any wrong doing in scourging Jesus and having Him crucified because it was all part of God’s plan for Jesus to die on the cross as our Savior. So then, why not absolve Satan of any sinister plot to cause the fall of Adam and Eve and their ejection from the Garden of Eden because it allowed God to initiate His plan of salvation. But these all miss the main point. Sin is sin, and sin must be punished, because if sin is not punished, then that would make God a liar. It is only the grace of God that allowed His Son to pay that penalty for those who believe. If, however, a sinner chooses not to believe in the death of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, then the intended punishment will be carried out.

Back in early 200 AD, church scholar Origen describes the situation in his day: “There are many religions in this world, many schools of philosophy, and many teachings which promote false assertions and are backed up with lying arguments. Those who invent them have a false reputation for wisdom—people of little or no authority. We should recognize them for what they are. Because of them, many false statements are commonly accepted as true. The whole world, including religion, is now burdened with lying opinions. Even the elect are being led astray if you can imagine that. The truth of God is now attacking and refuting every lie. Faith in God’s truth, God’s wisdom and God’s Word is undercutting all claims of false teaching. By each of these lies which had previously been asserted by men, the truth of God is abounding, by demonstrating their superficiality and by communicating the simple truth of faith in each and every case. In this way, says the Apostle, the truth of God abounds through the falsehood of men.”¹² It makes you wonder how the church survived until this day. The answer is that someone always stuck to the truth. It took a reformation, a revival, and a refilling of God’s Spirit, but God knows as long as there are those who will stand up for the truth the church will march on until Jesus comes again.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson V)

Bible scholar Adam Clarke adds his thoughts on God’s unfailing promises : “Should any man say that the promise of God had failed toward him, let him examine his heart and his ways, and he will find that he has departed out of that way in which alone God could, consistently with his holiness and truth, fulfill the promise.”¹ Then, theologian Frederic Godet comments: “The question thus signifies: ‘Can Jewish unbelief in regard to the Messiah invalidate God’s faithfulness to His people?’ The question might be asked in this sense: ‘If the Jews have not taken advantage of the salvation which the Messiah brought to them, will it follow that God has not really granted them all He had promised? Will anyone be able to accuse Him of having failed in His promises?”²

Albert Barnes has quite a few notes on this verse that make it impossible to include them all here. However, here is some of what he had to say about Paul’s emphatic “God forbid” that anyone would doubt God’s integrity and promises. He writes: “The sense is, ‘let not this by any means be supposed.’ This is the answer of the Apostle, showing that no such consequence followed from his doctrines; and that ‘if’ any such consequence should follow, the doctrine should be at once abandoned, and that every man, no matter who should be esteemed false rather than God. The veracity of God was a great first principle, which was to be held, whatever might be the consequence. This implies that the Apostle believed that the fidelity of God could be maintained in strict consistency with the fact that any number of the Jews might be found to be unfaithful, and be cast off. The Apostle has not offered an explanation of this or shown how it could be, but it is not difficult to understand how it was. The promise made to Abraham, and the fathers, was not unconditional but absolute, that all the Jews should be saved. It was implied that they were to be obedient; and that if they were not, they would be cast off.³ Though the Apostle has not stated it here, yet he has considered it at length in another part of this Epistle, and showed that it was not only consistent with the original promise that a part of the Jews should be found unfaithful, and be cast off, but that it had actually occurred according to the prophets.⁴ Thus, the fidelity of God was preserved; at the same time that it was a matter of fact that no small part of the nation was rejected and lost.”⁵

Thank God again that He is not moved nor been persuaded to do tit-for-tat with regard to His promises. There are times when the Lord says, “If you will…then I will.” But there are other times where He simply says, “I will,” without qualification. For instance, when Jesus gave His great commission He said, “You can be sure that I will be with you always. I will continue with you until the end of time.”⁶ But He did not say, if you stop baptizing and teaching then I’ll dump you and go find others to do your job. If He did that, could we ever find our way back to the truth? No! That’s why He will keep His promise, even if we don’t keep ours.

Verses 5-6: If we do wrong, does that show more clearly that God is right? Can we then say that God does wrong when He punishes us? (I’m repeating what I hear some people are saying.) Of course not! If God could not punish us, how could He be the world’s Judge?

Paul is putting up an argument here that may be hard for us to understand today because we don’t have the Jewish believers via-à-vis the Gentile believers as two major components of the Christian church. But what we do have are those who feel that they can earn their salvation through good works and those who say salvation is by faith alone. Also, those who were baptized as infants prior to having any knowledge of Christ, and those who were baptized as adults after surrendering to Christ as an act of their own will. The main point of Paul discourse is the discussion on whether the end justifies the means when it comes to making sure we do the right thing to receive compliments for our righteous living, or whether we are doing the right thing by honoring the One who saved us as a complement to God and the work of Christ on the cross. The Spirit and the Word have power enough to persuade hearers of the truth to accept Christ as Savior and have their sins covered by His blood. Therefore, regardless of the type of Liturgy, Sacrament, Rite or Ritual, every man must at one point come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. There are no other doors; He is the only one.

Paul then adds this qualifier: If God is not perfect and without error, then how can He judge us. Paul said that some people think that for God to punish His own is the wrong thing to do. But, He is not out to conquer us, only to change us. In the beginning, He made man in His own image. But Satan caused man’s image to change and become more like him. So God sent His only Son, the only One in His own image so that we could be changed back again into His likeness through His Son. When the children of Israel questioned God’s authority, He sent them this message: “Now, see that I, and only I, am God! There is no other God! I put people to death, and I let people live. I can hurt people, and I can make them well. No one can save another person from my power!”⁷ However, God did not say this to cause fear, but reverence. Judgment and punishment will come later.

In his vision of Nineveh, the prophet Nahum made this point: “The Lord is patient, but He is also very powerful!”⁸ The whole point was that God’s patience will one day be turned into punishment. So the best time to deal with our wrongs is now while grace is available. That’s why Paul told the believers in Thessalonica that they shouldn’t worry about being treated unfairly by the world, God will do what is right. In the end, they will be the ones punished while the faithful believer will be given relief.⁹

Paul was keenly aware that he was writing to the Messianic Jewish leaders of the community of believers there in Rome, and perhaps he was sounding more like a Rabbi than a Reverend. So he uses a qualifying phrase that is often found in Talmudic writings.¹⁰ It basically means, the language being used is a common one, not one expected of a professor or theologian. The NIV has “I am using a human argument.” Some scholars believe that it has more to do with Paul saying that what he was sharing came from human intuition under divine inspiration.

Yet, Paul was more or less letting them hear their own argument as it was fed back to them from an active listener. The question was whether God was right in disciplining His children when in fact their disobedience exposed His patience and grace. Paul says, “That’s nonsense!” God’s grace and mercy were measuring sticks. Not only was it used to calculate the amount of forgiveness applied when asked for, as well as the amount of punishment when ignored. This is what Abraham was appealing to when he asked God, “Surely you would not destroy fifty good people just to kill all a crowd of evil people.”¹¹ And when Job was worried that he had become too big of a problem for God and that he had no chance of survival, his friend Bildad reminded him: “God is always fair. God All-Powerful does what is right.”¹² Later on, another friend Elihu also pointed out to Job: “God is not only powerful, but He is fair. Do you think you can find fault with Him?”¹³

David also spoke from experience of God’s fairness and goodness: “He sees everything that happens. He watches people closely. The Lord examines those who are good and those who are bad.”¹⁴ In other words, God’s intervention is never a knee-jerk reaction. In fact, God is proactive. He already laid down the rules so His response should not come as a surprise. I’m sure that Paul was shaking his head when he was told that some of these Messianic Jews were actually thinking that God was pleased when His commandments were violated because it drew attention to their meaning and purpose. In other words, what good is a law if it is never broken so people can see the consequences? But Paul has an answer ready.

Early church scholar Origen made this comment: Paul says that it is wrong to say that God is unjust for bringing wrath on people. For how will the one who judges the world be thought to be unjust when his very title of Judge shows that He does nothing without judgment? And where there is judgment, it follows that there will be justice. For the words, judge and judgment are both derived from justice.¹⁵

Then early church preacher Chrysostom asks: “What does Paul mean? God honored the Jews, but they dishonored Him. This gives God the victory and shows the greatness of His love toward man, in that He continued to honor them in spite of what they were like. But if this is true of us (someone might say), why am I to be punished when I have contributed to God’s victory by dishonoring Him? Paul answers this by a corresponding absurdity. In effect, he says that if this man were the cause of God’s victory and he was punished as a result, it was an injustice. But if God is not unjust and the man was punished, then he could not have been the cause of God’s victory.… For God’s justice far exceeds what we think of as justice and is based on other indefinable criteria.”¹⁶

Then, other church scholars add their thoughts. Pelagius says: “Now the apostle begins to answer the objection. It is unjust if God punishes sinners merely in order to appear even more righteous.”¹⁷ And another scholar adds: “It is not that our wickedness increases God’s justice, but at that time when we come into judgment with God we shall be deprived of His promises as retribution for not having obeyed His commands.”¹⁸ And finally, Caesarius makes this comment: “When adversities come … or when by God’s just judgment hostility, drought or death is imposed, we should attribute this to our sins rather than to God’s injustice.”¹⁹ It’s another way of saying that God has done all that He intends to do to show mankind what He approves and disapproves of. So it’s up to them to either obey and receive the promise of everlasting life, or disobey and be given the punishment promised to all who reject His offer. So judgment is not meant as a negative action to destroy, but as a positive process to ensure that whose who accept God’s grace will be saved and given everlasting life.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson IV)

If every preacher were to backslide, and every theologian proves to be a heretic, and every evangelist found to be a fraud, it still would not change the Word of God nor would anyone have an excuse to disbelieve the promises of God. As Jesus said, heaven and earth may pass away, but the validity of His word would never expire. Mankind has, and will, fail. But until God Himself fails, His gospel will still remain binding. One day, we will all be judged on what God reveals we did, whether what we said or did proves to be true or false. But we will all be judged by One who cannot lie, and every word He has ever spoken remains forever true.

Paul argues here, that God’s holiness is not made more prominent just by comparing it to our own depravity. Likewise, His honesty will never receive greater respect just because we admit to being liars. In addition, the glory of the Lord does not shine any brighter when we place it against the backdrop of our scarlet sin and shame. As Paul says, he is trying to reason on a human level with these people. He was trying to get the Jewish believers in Rome to see that by sinning and then seeking God’s forgiveness was not the way to show the greatness of God’s love. Otherwise, God would be put in the unenviable position of having to cancel His punishment of sin so that His forgiveness would bring Him greater honor and praise. Paul wanted them to know that God’s holiness is brightest when, like a glittering jewel, it is placed in a beautiful setting, and is displayed in our consecrated lives to reflect the sunshine of His love. His truthfulness and honesty are honored with reverence best when it becomes our daily compass for living. The Lord’s glory is like a new star in the midnight sky when it glistens off a faithful servant willing to give his life for the Master. Be not deceived, God cannot be mocked.¹

Paul made mention of this same truth when he wrote the Galatians. He told them: “We Jews came to Christ to be made right with God, so it is clear that we were sinners too.”² In other words, just because they felt they were right when God looked at them through the law, they found out they were wrong when God looked at them through Christ. So that raised the question, did the coming of Christ then make all Jews sinners? Paul answers, “No!” The law is what made them all sinners because it showed them the wrong they were doing when they tried saving themselves. But Christ came to save them if they would simply give up the law that couldn’t save them and accept Him as their Savior. Paul says: “I died to the law so that I could live for God. I have been nailed to the cross with Christ. So I am not the one living now—it is Christ living in me.”³ So now Paul is trying to get the same point across to the Roman believers that he made with the Galatians when he wrote “If following the law is how people are made right with God, then there was no reason for Christ to die.”⁴

That’s why the Jewish leaders in the Christian community in Rome had to decide what was right, their thinking, or God’s Word. Certainly, they remembered what Moses said: “The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just. A trustworthy God who does no wrong, He is righteous and straight.”⁵ This no doubt led one Psalmist to exclaim: “The Lord is good! There is no end to His grace. We can trust His faithfulness forever and ever!”⁶ And another proclaimed: “The main thing about Your Word is that it’s true, and all Your just rules are permanent.”⁷ One thing I learned quickly, when I took the leap of faith and began using computers back in the mid-1980’s, that is: the constant upgrades had to be installed if I wanted to keep my machine current and efficient. But isn’t it amazing, God has yet to issue an upgrade to His centuries-old Word, and it is as meaningful today as when it was written.

That why Jesus made it clear to all who came to hear him at Aenon, an area near Salim, near the Jordan River⁸ “The one who comes from above is greater than all others… Whoever accepts what He says proves that God speaks the truth.”⁹ That’s why Paul could assure the Corinthian believers: “As surely as God is trustworthy, we don’t say ‘Yes’ when we mean ‘No.’”¹⁰ No wonder the author of Hebrews had the courage to say: “These two things will never change: God will never lie when He says something, and He will never go back on His promises.”¹¹ The Psalmist put it this way when comparing man’s word with God’s Word: “Compared to God, they are nothing — no more than a gentle puff of air!”¹² Why is that important? Because with His spoken word the universe was brought into existence, and with His breath, the human soul was created.

Then the Apostle Paul uses what David says to prove the point he is trying to make here about his word against the word of some Jewish leaders in the congregation at Rome. Their teachings are based on the Law, but his teaching is based on the Gospel. So when tested against each other, which one will be proven true: God’s Word or man’s word? In Jewish thinking, this simply involved winning the argument based on better reasoning and logic. There was an instance of such overcoming when Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus was part of the discussion among Rabbis involving cleanliness. When Rabbi Hanina offered his reasoning, a well-known teacher pointed out that: “Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus won his case against the other Rabbis.”¹³ In other words, Rabbi Hanina’s facts proved to be more valid, reasonable, and justified than those of the other teachers. Thus, Paul was using David’s words to point out that you cannot successfully argue with God. He will always win!

Several early church scholars share their views on what Paul says here. For instance, Chrysostom gives his viewpoint: “Paul is saying something like this: ‘Even if every one of the Jews was an unbeliever … God would be even more justified.’ What does the word ‘justified’ mean? It means that if there were a trial and an examination of the things which God had done for the Jews and also of what they had done to Him, the victory would be with God, and all the right would be on His side.”¹⁴ Then another early church writer makes this comment: “God is said to be true because He does not give to sinners what He has promised to the saints.”¹⁵

Then Jerome offers an interesting perspective: “If everyone who utters a lie has already destroyed his soul, and all of us are liars, are we all going to perish? What Scripture says … we should interpret as referring to heretics.… The doer of the deed has indeed killed his own soul, but the heretic—the liar—has killed as many souls as he has misled.”¹⁶ And a contemporary scholar of Augustine’s makes this point: “‘Every man’ means the majority. Paul’s opponents had quoted this text as if David had meant: ‘For this reason have I sinned, that thou might appear just in judging me.’ But the true meaning is that God promised to punish sinners without showing favoritism and that some thought His delay in doing so amounted to a lie. God prevails when He judges the deeds of those from whom no one thought vengeance would ever be exacted. Or it may also mean that God has shown that He is concerned about mankind … and that He has overthrown those who wrongly suggest that He is not interested in human affairs.”¹⁷

John Calvin makes his position clear: “Since these two things stand together, yes, in accord, that God is true and that man is false, it follows that the truth of God is not nullified by the falsehood of men; for except he did now set those two things in opposition, the one to the other, he would afterwards have in vain labored to refute what was absurd, and show how God is just, though He manifests His justice by our injustice. Hence the meaning is by no means ambiguous, — that the faithfulness of God is so far from being nullified by the disloyalty and apostasy of men that it thereby becomes more evident. ‘God,’ Paul says, ‘is true, not only because He is prepared to stand faithfully behind His promises, but because He also really fulfills whatever He declares; for He so speaks, that His command becomes a reality. On the other hand, man is false, not only because he often violates his pledged faith, but because he naturally seeks falsehood and shuns the truth.”¹⁸

Calvin then goes on to say: “The application then of this passage is as follows: Since all the sins of mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of the Lord, and since He is especially glorified by His truth, it follows, that even the falsehood of men serves to confirm rather than to subvert His truth. Though the word “judged” may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the Greek translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning of the Psalmist.”¹⁹ The Hebrew text in this psalm reads: “justified in passing sentence.”²⁰ Clearly, God’s grace is always at work, even when people do wrong because His main goal is to save, not destroy. And for that, we should thank Him every day.

John Bengel makes the point that in any courtroom the judge does not make his judgment of guilt or innocence based on his own righteousness but on the Law. However, God exercises the right to make His judgment to manifest His own righteousness, as well as the unrighteousness of mankind. In that case, God is both Judge and Jury. So there is no appeal to any power outside of God’s jurisdiction. Therefore, says Bengel: “It is unutterable condescension in [demanding] God to come down and plead His cause with mankind.”²¹

Charles Ellicott agrees in this way: “Psalms 51, in which the quotation occurs, is commonly (in accordance with the heading), ascribed to David after his sin with Bathsheba. The effect of this sin is to throw out into the strongest clarity the justice of the sentence by which it is followed and punished. The original is, ‘That You might be just in Your speaking; that You might be pure in your judging.’ St. Paul adopts the rendering of the Septuagint Version, who make the last word passive instead of active, thus making it apply, not to the sentence given by God, but to the imaginary trial to which by a figure of speech that sentence itself is supposed to be submitted.”²²

s

“Liberty is the right to choose. Freedom is the result of the right choice.” – Anonymous

Ask anyone who has become addicted to anything and they will tell you that while it was their right to choose, they certainly made the wrong choice. The same is true of our choice in spiritual matters. Remember, because you have the right to choose, your freedom in Christ is at stake. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

The “W” in Christmas

I found this article written by a mother who did not leave her name. I think you will enjoy it as much as I did. She writes:

Last December, I vowed to make Christmas a calm and peaceful experience. I had cut back on nonessential obligations – extensive card writing, endless baking, decorating, and even overspending. Yet still, I found myself exhausted, unable to appreciate the precious family moments, and of course, the true meaning of Christmas.

My son, Nicholas, was in kindergarten that year. It was an exciting season for a six-year-old. For weeks, he’d been memorizing songs for his school’s ‘Winter Pageant.’ I didn’t have the heart to tell him I’d be working the night of the production. Unwilling to miss his shining moment, I spoke with his teacher. She assured me there’d be a dress rehearsal the morning of the presentation. All parents unable to attend that evening were welcome to come then. Fortunately, Nicholas seemed happy with the compromise.

So, the morning of the dress rehearsal, I filed in ten minutes early,  found a spot on the cafeteria floor and sat down. Around the room, I saw several other parents quietly scampering to their seats. As I waited, students were led into the room. Each class, accompanied by their teacher, sat cross-legged on the floor. Then, each group, one by one, rose to perform their song.

Because the public school system had long stopped referring to the holiday as “Christmas,” I didn’t expect anything other than fun, commercial entertainment – songs of reindeer, Santa Claus, snowflakes and good cheer.

So, when my son’s class rose to sing, “Christmas Love,” I was slightly taken aback by its bold title. Nicholas was aglow, as were all of his classmates, adorned in fuzzy mittens, red sweaters, and bright snowcaps on their heads. Those in the front row- center stage – held up large letters, one by one, to spell out the title of the song. As the class sang “C is for Christmas,” a child held up the letter C. Then, “H is for Happy,” and so on until each child holding up his or her portion would present the complete message, “”Christmas Love.”

The performance was going smoothly, until suddenly, we noticed her; a small, quiet, girl in the front row holding the letter “M” upside down – totally unaware her letter “M” appeared as a “W”. The audience of 1st through 6th graders snickered at this little one’s mistake. But she had no idea they were laughing at her, so she stood tall, proudly holding her “W”. Although many teachers tried to shush the children, the laughter continued until the last letter was raised, and we all saw the message together. That’s when a hush fell over the audience and eyes began to widen. In that instant, we understood the reason we were there, why we celebrated the holiday in the first place, why even in the chaos, there was a purpose for our festivities. For when the last letter was held high, the message read loud and clear:

CHRISTWAS LOVE

And, I believe, He will always be.

Author unknown

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson III)

Other early church scholars add their views concerning God’s faithfulness versus man’s unfaithfulness. For instance, Apollinaris writes: “Let it be agreed, Paul says, that God is faithful and true in every case, whereas men have been judged as unfaithful and untrue, so that God by His goodness may conquer the self-righteousness of men by bestowing His own righteousness upon them.”¹ And Theodoret says: “God knew in advance who would obey the law and who would break it. Therefore, those who did not believe were unable to stand in the way of His blessings.”² In other words, God did not set up living under the Law of Moses for it to fail. However, even if those to whom it was given failed, God would still use it to prepare them for living more freely under the Law of Grace.

Reformer John Calvin believes that Paul was holding back some of the harsh criticism he could have unleashed on the Jews for having trampled the covenant underfoot as they paraded around proudly boasting of having the sign of circumcision. Says Calvin: “As then he [Paul] seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished through the ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of reticence, as he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he might have truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant of God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some.”³

However, Calvin adds this: “For Paul’s inquiry is not so much whether the unbelief of men neutralizes the truth of God, so that it should not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether it hinders its effect and fulfillment as to mankind. The meaning then is: Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God’s covenant so ineffective by their unfaithfulness that it brings forth no fruit among them? To this, he answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God should lose its stability through man’s wickedness. Though then the greater part had been nullified and trodden under foot God’s covenant, it yet retained its efficacy and manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with regard to a few of that nation: and it is then effective when the grace or the blessing of the Lord assists in eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except when the promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual covenant is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained in that nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away from the privileges of the covenant.”⁴

Bible scholar John Bengel notes that God’s power in His promise to save will continue even if mankind loses all faith. He says: “They who deny universal grace, perceive but little of the faithfulness of God in respect to unbelievers. Even in the case of the lost, the preexistent will of God ought to be highly valued. For what they have not, they yet might have; and this very circumstance confers upon them a very great privilege; and even though they do not improve it, there still remains this advantage, that the glory of God, and the glory of the faith of God, are illustrated in them.”⁵ Is Bengel suggesting that all mankind will be redeemed and saved whether they want to or not? No! He is pointing out that nothing mankind can do will force God to cancel His plan to save all those who are willing, even if it comes down to just one.

Adam Clarke sees Paul again posing a question in this verse that is answered in the next: “If some in the Jewish nation have abused their privileges, and acted contrary to their obligations, will their wickedness annul the Promise which God made to Abraham, that he would, by an everlasting covenant, be a God to him and to his seed after him?⁶ Will God, therefore, by stripping the Jews of their peculiar honor… will He falsify His promise to the nation because some of the Jews are bad men?”⁷ In Clarke’s mind, Paul gives an emphatic answer, “God forbid!” In doing so, Paul is intimating that it should never even be considered. In fact, let every person who believes so be a liar. God alone is telling the truth.

Albert Barnes sees Paul raising a question that might come from a skeptical reader. He writes: “This is to be regarded as another objection of a Jew. ‘What then? or what follows? if it is admitted that some of the nation did not believe, does it not follow that the faithfulness of God in His promises will fail?’ The points of the objection are these: The Apostle had maintained that [in spite of their being chosen and have circumcision as a seal of approval] the nation was sinful.”⁸ The meaning of the objection is that the Jews who proved unfaithful would be lost, [and this] would imply that God had failed to keep His promises to the nation; or that He had made promises which the result showed He was not able to perform.⁹ But this type of thinking would come only from a doubter who thinks that while he can’t trust himself, he is given the right to question God’s faithfulness

Charles Hodge sees this comparison: “It cannot escape notice how completely the doctrine of the Jews has been transferred by ritualists [from Judaism] to Christianity. They [the Jews] held that if a man was circumcised and remained within the Theocracy, he might be punished for his sins, but he would ultimately be saved. So [Christian] ritualists hold that all who are baptized and remain within the pale of the true Church, though they may suffer for their sins here or hereafter (in purgatory) are certain to be finally saved.”¹⁰

And Charles Ellicott remarks: “The Apostle considers an objection that might be brought against his argument that the divine revelation granted them was a special privilege of the Jewish people. It might be said that they had forfeited and canceled this privilege by their unbelief. He first reduces the objection to its proper limits; it was not all, but some, who were unbelievers. But granting that there were some who did not believe this fact would have no power to shake the eternal promises of God.”¹¹

F. F. Bruce gives us his commentary: “Now, in fact, Israel had not proved faithful to this trust. And this might have been put as an objection to Paul when he argued that it was a great advantage to belong to the nation which had received the divine oracles. But his reply is that men’s faithlessness never alters God’s faithfulness or frustrates His purpose. Their unfaithfulness simply makes His truth clearly visible: His righteousness is always vindicated over against their unrighteousness. Then a further objection is dealt with. Someone may say: ‘If my faithlessness makes God’s faithfulness more visible if my unrighteousness establishes His righteousness, why should He find fault with me? He is really the gainer by my sin; why should He exact retribution for it?’ This objection seems so foolish to Paul that he apologizes for mentioning it. The answer is plain: God is the moral governor of the universe, the judge of all the earth; how could He exercise that function which is inseparable from His Godhead if He did not exact retribution for sin?”¹²

Jewish scholar David Stern asks an important question: “If the New Testament is true, why doesn’t my Rabbi believe it?” He then goes on to say: “Paul, the Rabbi from Tarsus, gives the correct answer to this common Jewish question: the veracity of God’s Word (v. 2) does not depend on who believes it; truth stands by itself. If some of them were unfaithful to God’s words (or ‘did not believe’ them), so what? Does their faithlessness (or ‘unbelief, lack of trust’) cancel God’s faithfulness? Heaven forbid! God would be true even if everyone were a liar! Even the socially and religiously sanctioned unbelief of the Jewish community as a whole from Paul’s day to the present does not take one iota away from the truth of God’s Word. Over against Jewish communal rejection of God’s Word as expressed in the books of the New Covenant, the individual may discover for himself its truth and stability; the outcome of his search is not in doubt: God would be true even if everyone were a liar.”¹³

Verse 4: No, even if everyone else is a liar, God will always do what He says. As the Scriptures say about Him, “You, O God, will be proven right in what You say, and You will win the verdict when You are put on trial.”

Paul now reveals why these questions were being asked based on an expression by King David: “In panic I declared, ‘All people are liars.‘”¹⁴ Early church bishop Eusebius commented: “Even if all men loved a lie before the coming of the truth, the true God nevertheless remained fair, holding fast to the things which were proper to God and fulfilling everything which was said that was fitting.”¹⁵

Paul is emphatic about the stability and steadfastness of God’s promises, even though man may waiver and even go back on his commitment, God will not use that as an excuse to renege on His own Word. The Apostle appeals to what David said after he had admitted his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Paul chooses to paraphrase what the convicted King said, which would go something like this today: “Does their faithlessness cancel God’s faithfulness? Heaven forbid! What God said would be true even if everyone were a liar! — as His Word says, “So that you, O God, may be proven right in what You said, and end up winning the verdict if You are put on trial.”¹⁶

Early church scholar Ambrosiaster has this to say: “Because God is truthful, He gives what He has promised. To fail is human, for the times and the foolishness of nature make man unstable in that he does not have foreknowledge. But God, for whom there is no future, remains unchanging, as He says: ‘I the Lord do not change.’¹⁷ Therefore Paul says that all men are liars, and this is true. For nature is fallible and is not unreasonably called a liar. It may be a liar intentionally or accidentally, but we must not expect God to be like that, for He is perfect and full of good will and will accomplish what He has promised. He even confirms this by the prophetic oracle: ‘You are justified in your sentence and blameless in your judgment.¹⁸”¹⁹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson II)

Albert Barnes has several points to make here about what makes a Jew better than a Gentile: “The design of the first part of this chapter is to answer some of the objections which might be offered by a Jew to the statements in the last chapter. The first objection is stated in this verse. A Jew would naturally ask if the view which the apostle had given were correct, what special benefit could the Jew derive from his religion? The objection would arise particularly from the position advanced in 2:25-26, that if a pagan should do the things required by the Law, he would be treated as ‘if’ he had been circumcised. Hence, the question, ‘what profit is there in circumcision?’”¹

Barnes then goes on to account for why not only was circumcision to be taken as a plus for the Jews, but also that God had entrusted them with His revelation and Word. Barnes focuses on the use of the term “oracles.” “The word ‘oracle’ among the pagans properly meant: The answer or response of a god, or of some priest supposed to be inspired, to an inquiry of importance, usually expressed in a brief pretentious way, and often with great ambiguity. The place from which such a response was usually obtained was also called an oracle, as the oracle at Delphi, etc. These oracles were frequent among the pagans, as affairs of great importance were usually submitted to them. The word rendered ‘oracles’ occurs in the New Testament but four other times, Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11. It is evidently used here to denote the Scriptures, as being what was spoken by God, and particularly perhaps the divine promises. To possess these was, of course, an eminent privilege, and included all others, as they instructed them in their duty, and were their guide in everything that pertained to them in this life and the life to come. They contained, besides, many precious promises respecting the future dignity of the nation in reference to the Messiah. No higher favor can be conferred on a people than to be put in possession of sacred Scriptures. And this fact should excite us to gratitude, and lead us to endeavor to extend them also to other nations.”² Makes you wonder if Christians today value and celebrate the Bible as a wonderful gift from God?

Swiss theologian Godet proposes two questions related to circumcision. The first question about circumcision relates to the spiritual symbol of Israel’s election, and the second question relates to the physical symbol of Israel’s election. Godet says: “Will the people whom God has elected and marked with the seal of this election be treated exactly like the rest of the world? This objection is of the same nature as that which would be made in our day by a nominal Christian, if, when put face to face with God’s sentence, he were to ask what advantage there accrues to him from his creed and baptism, if they are not [designed] to save him from condemnation?”³ These are good questions that every believer should ask themselves. Am I saved because I was baptized as an infant or even as an adult, or was I baptized because I am saved by God’s grace, love, and forgiveness?

Charles Ellicott gives us his commentary: “One real and solid advantage on the part of the Jew was that he was made the direct recipient of divine revelation. This privilege of his is not annulled by the defection of a part of the people. It rests not upon the precarious fidelity of men, but upon the infallible promise of God. Yet is not the ultimate triumph of that promise any excuse for those who have see it as nothing. They will be punished just the same, and rightly. Otherwise, there could be no judgment at all. The chance objection that sin loses its guilt if it reflects God’s glory, or, in other words, that the end justifies the means, carries with it its own condemnation.”⁴

Bible scholar F. F. Bruce sees the following in what Paul says here: “Here Paul imagines someone breaking into his argument and saying, ‘Well then, if it is being a Jew inwardly that counts, if it is the “circumcision” of the heart that matters, is there any advantage in belonging to the Jewish nation, or in being physically circumcised?’ We might have expected Paul to answer this supposed question quite categorically: ‘None at all!’ But, rather to our surprise, he replies, ‘Much in every way.’ Of course, it is an advantage to belong to the circumcised nation. Think of all the privileges granted by God to that nation—privileges in which other nations had no part. It would be asking too much of Paul to expect him to deny his true ancestral heritage, especially as now he had found, in the gospel to which his life was devoted, the fulfillment of the age-old hope of his people. Among the ancestral privileges of Israel, Paul reckons as of first importance the fact that they were the custodians of ‘the oracles of God’. To have the revelation of God’s will and purpose committed to them was a high honor indeed. But if it was a high honor, it carried with it a great responsibility. If they proved unfaithful to their trust, their case was worse than that of the nations to which God had not revealed Himself.”⁵

Jewish theologian David Stern also speaks about the supposed advantage that Jews had, and what did being physically circumcised add to it? After what Paul said in 2:17-19, one might expect the answer to be “none.” But says Stern: “Paul’s answer is: Much in every way, not just in one way or some ways, but every way, of which in the first place is the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God, His logia, his divine communications (not limited to His promises or prophecies, as the word “oracles” in KJV implies). This is of first importance because any other advantage of being Jewish stems from God’s having chosen and spoken to the Jewish people. To imagine that the Jews are special because they have a finer ethical sense than others, or a land, or some sort of ‘racial genius’ is to put the cart before the horse. The Jews were ‘the fewest of all peoples’ (Deuteronomy 7:7), yet Adonai loved them, chose them and separated them for Himself. ‘He declares His Word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not done so with any other nation, and as for His judgments they have not known them” (Psalm 147:19–20). In sum, having the very words of God is no cause for Jewish pride, since the initiative was entirely God’s; yet it is ‘in every way’ a great advantage.”⁶

Verse 3: It is true that some Jews were not faithful to God. But will that stop God from doing what He promised?

Today, when meeting those who choose not to believe and follow Jesus, instead of showing them mercy and compassion, as one would offer to a blind person trying to find their way to the exit gate in a maze, we attempt to isolate their views with long discourses of theological reasoning. But the apostle Paul states very emphatically, their unbelief does not eternally exclude them from one day coming to Jesus in order to be saved, nor does it make void God’s plan of salvation offered to whosoever will may come. If we read John 3:3 to unbelievers, and they still do not see the need of being born-again, it does not mean they will never see it or that we should cancel the process of trying to win them to Christ. The constant and certain offer of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ does not depend on people’s personal acceptance or rejection, but on His faithfulness in keeping the door open for their entry at the moment the Holy Spirit brings them and He invites them to enter.

I think we can all vouch for the fact that in many cases believers have given up much sooner than God has on those who have been misled or fallen way behind due to disobedience. After all, it took forty years for the children of Israel to get out of the desert into the promised land. Yet, God led them all the way with His cloud by day and fire by night. The writer of Hebrews puts it bluntly: “The message they heard did not help them. They heard it but did not accept it with faith.”⁷ How often have we seen someone suffer setbacks and disappointments because they did not take instructions seriously? But it does not mean they will forever deny what is wrong and not seek help to get it fixed. Paul no doubt knew from experience that no matter how long it may take, once a person accepts the truth and begins to walk in that truth, the same joy and excitement is still there had they done it, to begin with. In fact, the joy may be even greater.

The key factor for Paul here is this: A person’s unbelief in God will not make God’s belief in them any less effective when they do believe. The reason for this is the fact that although mankind’s commitment to God may change, God’s commitment to mankind remains constant. We find this clearly stated in Scripture where it says: “God is not a man; He will not lie. God is not a human being; His decisions will not change. If He says He will do something, then He will do it. If He makes a promise, then He will do what He promised.”⁸ This led God to tell Israel the following: “The mountains may disappear, and the hills may become dust, but my faithful love will never leave you. I will make peace with you, and it will never end.”⁹ So the question now for the Jews was this: Do I trust myself to get through or should I trust God to get me through?

But beyond that, Paul was speaking on the authority of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus Himself made this declaration: “The whole world, earth, and sky, may be destroyed, but my words will last forever.”¹⁰ This gave Paul the courage to tell young Timothy: “If we are not faithful, He will remain faithful because He cannot be untrue to who He is.”¹¹ To put this another way, we could say that no matter which way you are going or regardless of which direction you are facing, the morning sun will always appear first on the eastern horizon. By the same token, no matter which direction you may turn the compass, the needle will always be pointing north. In the same way, no matter what path we take or what destiny we are attempting to reach without God’s help, when we need Him most urgently He is always available when we look for Him, and He is always close by when we call out His name.¹²

After examining this verse, early church scholar Origen makes this comment: “The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews, but some of them did not believe either God or His oracles. Those who did not believe were carnal, as Paul says elsewhere: ‘The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him.’¹³ But their faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God. By God’s faithfulness, we understand either the faith which God had when He entrusted His oracles to them or the faith by which those who received the oracles from God believed in Him. We are therefore reminded that their faithlessness has not nullified the faithfulness of God, which He has shown to us.”¹⁴

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson II)

Albert Barnes has several points to make here about what makes a Jew better than a Gentile: “The design of the first part of this chapter is to answer some of the objections which might be offered by a Jew to the statements in the last chapter. The first objection is stated in this verse. A Jew would naturally ask if the view which the apostle had given were correct, what special benefit could the Jew derive from his religion? The objection would arise particularly from the position advanced in 2:25-26, that if a pagan should do the things required by the Law, he would be treated as ‘if’ he had been circumcised. Hence, the question, ‘what profit is there in circumcision?’”¹

Barnes then goes on to account for why not only was circumcision to be taken as a plus for the Jews, but also that God had entrusted them with His revelation and Word. Barnes focuses on the use of the term “oracles.” “The word ‘oracle’ among the pagans properly meant: The answer or response of a god, or of some priest supposed to be inspired, to an inquiry of importance, usually expressed in a brief pretentious way, and often with great ambiguity. The place from which such a response was usually obtained was also called an oracle, as the oracle at Delphi, etc. These oracles were frequent among the pagans, as affairs of great importance were usually submitted to them. The word rendered ‘oracles’ occurs in the New Testament but four other times, Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11. It is evidently used here to denote the Scriptures, as being what was spoken by God, and particularly perhaps the divine promises. To possess these was, of course, an eminent privilege, and included all others, as they instructed them in their duty, and were their guide in everything that pertained to them in this life and the life to come. They contained, besides, many precious promises respecting the future dignity of the nation in reference to the Messiah. No higher favor can be conferred on a people than to be put in possession of sacred Scriptures. And this fact should excite us to gratitude, and lead us to endeavor to extend them also to other nations.”² Makes you wonder if Christians today value and celebrate the Bible as a wonderful gift from God?

Swiss theologian Godet proposes two questions related to circumcision. The first question about circumcision relates to the spiritual symbol of Israel’s election, and the second question relates to the physical symbol of Israel’s election. Godet says: “Will the people whom God has elected and marked with the seal of this election be treated exactly like the rest of the world? This objection is of the same nature as that which would be made in our day by a nominal Christian, if, when put face to face with God’s sentence, he were to ask what advantage there accrues to him from his creed and baptism, if they are not [designed] to save him from condemnation?”³ These are good questions that every believer should ask themselves. Am I saved because I was baptized as an infant or even as an adult, or was I baptized because I am saved by God’s grace, love, and forgiveness?

Charles Ellicott gives us his commentary: “One real and solid advantage on the part of the Jew was that he was made the direct recipient of divine revelation. This privilege of his is not annulled by the defection of a part of the people. It rests not upon the precarious fidelity of men, but upon the infallible promise of God. Yet is not the ultimate triumph of that promise any excuse for those who have see it as nothing. They will be punished just the same, and rightly. Otherwise, there could be no judgment at all. The chance objection that sin loses its guilt if it reflects God’s glory, or, in other words, that the end justifies the means, carries with it its own condemnation.”⁴

Bible scholar F. F. Bruce sees the following in what Paul says here: “Here Paul imagines someone breaking into his argument and saying, ‘Well then, if it is being a Jew inwardly that counts, if it is the “circumcision” of the heart that matters, is there any advantage in belonging to the Jewish nation, or in being physically circumcised?’ We might have expected Paul to answer this supposed question quite categorically: ‘None at all!’ But, rather to our surprise, he replies, ‘Much in every way.’ Of course, it is an advantage to belong to the circumcised nation. Think of all the privileges granted by God to that nation—privileges in which other nations had no part. It would be asking too much of Paul to expect him to deny his true ancestral heritage, especially as now he had found, in the gospel to which his life was devoted, the fulfillment of the age-old hope of his people. Among the ancestral privileges of Israel, Paul reckons as of first importance the fact that they were the custodians of ‘the oracles of God’. To have the revelation of God’s will and purpose committed to them was a high honor indeed. But if it was a high honor, it carried with it a great responsibility. If they proved unfaithful to their trust, their case was worse than that of the nations to which God had not revealed Himself.”⁵

Jewish theologian David Stern also speaks about the supposed advantage that Jews had, and what did being physically circumcised add to it? After what Paul said in 2:17-19, one might expect the answer to be “none.” But says Stern: “Paul’s answer is: Much in every way, not just in one way or some ways, but every way, of which in the first place is the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the very words of God, His logia, his divine communications (not limited to His promises or prophecies, as the word “oracles” in KJV implies). This is of first importance because any other advantage of being Jewish stems from God’s having chosen and spoken to the Jewish people. To imagine that the Jews are special because they have a finer ethical sense than others, or a land, or some sort of ‘racial genius’ is to put the cart before the horse. The Jews were ‘the fewest of all peoples’ (Deuteronomy 7:7), yet Adonai loved them, chose them and separated them for Himself. ‘He declares His Word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not done so with any other nation, and as for His judgments they have not known them” (Psalm 147:19–20). In sum, having the very words of God is no cause for Jewish pride, since the initiative was entirely God’s; yet it is ‘in every way’ a great advantage.”⁶

Verse 3: It is true that some Jews were not faithful to God. But will that stop God from doing what He promised?

Today, when meeting those who choose not to believe and follow Jesus, instead of showing them mercy and compassion, as one would offer to a blind person trying to find their way to the exit gate in a maze, we attempt to isolate their views with long discourses of theological reasoning. But the apostle Paul states very emphatically, their unbelief does not eternally exclude them from one day coming to Jesus in order to be saved, nor does it make void God’s plan of salvation offered to whosoever will may come. If we read John 3:3 to unbelievers, and they still do not see the need of being born-again, it does not mean they will never see it or that we should cancel the process of trying to win them to Christ. The constant and certain offer of God’s salvation through Jesus Christ does not depend on people’s personal acceptance or rejection, but on His faithfulness in keeping the door open for their entry at the moment the Holy Spirit brings them and He invites them to enter.

I think we can all vouch for the fact that in many cases believers have given up much sooner than God has on those who have been misled or fallen way behind due to disobedience. After all, it took forty years for the children of Israel to get out of the desert into the promised land. Yet, God led them all the way with His cloud by day and fire by night. The writer of Hebrews puts it bluntly: “The message they heard did not help them. They heard it but did not accept it with faith.”⁷ How often have we seen someone suffer setbacks and disappointments because they did not take instructions seriously? But it does not mean they will forever deny what is wrong and not seek help to get it fixed. Paul no doubt knew from experience that no matter how long it may take, once a person accepts the truth and begins to walk in that truth, the same joy and excitement is still there had they done it, to begin with. In fact, the joy may be even greater.

The key factor for Paul here is this: A person’s unbelief in God will not make God’s belief in them any less effective when they do believe. The reason for this is the fact that although mankind’s commitment to God may change, God’s commitment to mankind remains constant. We find this clearly stated in Scripture where it says: “God is not a man; He will not lie. God is not a human being; His decisions will not change. If He says He will do something, then He will do it. If He makes a promise, then He will do what He promised.”⁸ This led God to tell Israel the following: “The mountains may disappear, and the hills may become dust, but my faithful love will never leave you. I will make peace with you, and it will never end.”⁹ So the question now for the Jews was this: Do I trust myself to get through or should I trust God to get me through?

But beyond that, Paul was speaking on the authority of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus Himself made this declaration: “The whole world, earth, and sky, may be destroyed, but my words will last forever.”¹⁰ This gave Paul the courage to tell young Timothy: “If we are not faithful, He will remain faithful because He cannot be untrue to who He is.”¹¹ To put this another way, we could say that no matter which way you are going or regardless of which direction you are facing, the morning sun will always appear first on the eastern horizon. By the same token, no matter which direction you may turn the compass, the needle will always be pointing north. In the same way, no matter what path we take or what destiny we are attempting to reach without God’s help, when we need Him most urgently He is always available when we look for Him, and He is always close by when we call out His name.¹²

After examining this verse, early church scholar Origen makes this comment: “The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews, but some of them did not believe either God or His oracles. Those who did not believe were carnal, as Paul says elsewhere: ‘The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him.’¹³ But their faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God. By God’s faithfulness, we understand either the faith which God had when He entrusted His oracles to them or the faith by which those who received the oracles from God believed in Him. We are therefore reminded that their faithlessness has not nullified the faithfulness of God, which He has shown to us.”¹⁴