Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson X)

Charles Hodge adds his commentary on mankind’s moral collapse: “Blinded by sin to the perfections and loveliness of God and truth, they have turned from the way which He has prescribed and which leads to Himself, and have made choice of another way and of another portion [destiny]. Here, as in the first chapter, the loss of the knowledge of God is represented as [being] followed by spiritual blindness, and spiritual blindness by moral degradation. [When] men do not understand, i.e., have no right apprehension of God; then they turn away from Him, then they become altogether unprofitable, worthless, morally corrupt. This depravity is universal, for there is none that does good, no not one.”¹ Not only was this the case during Paul’s time, and again in Dr. Hodge’s day, but we see this same moral and spiritual deterioration today, something we never thought we’d ever see repeated.

There are some in our world who think that when you get rid of religion because you’ve come to a conclusion there is no God, or that the God of the Jews and Christians is dead, that your mind becomes free to think with greater freedom and thereby you can look a life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a more intellectual, amoral way. That way, there is less chance of others being offended by your point of view.

The great Charles Spurgeon adds his insights: “This is God’s verdict upon the whole human race. He has the best opportunity of seeing them, and He has the best capacity for judging them, and this is what He says of all men as they are by nature. Yet men come and talk to us about the righteous heathen whose virtues they extol, the imaginary good people, for there are none such actually in existence. Here the Lord himself is speaking, and the Spirit of God is quoting from passages of the Old Testament, which he puts together to describe the character of humanity. How sweeping are all the terms!”²

And theologian Frédéric Godet sees it from a scholarly perspective: “The two terms which follow in Romans 3:11 have a more particular sense. The first is related to the understanding: the knowledge of the Creator in His works; the second to the will: the aspiration after union with this perfect being. God is represented as seeking that one person and not finding them.”³ We must remember that Paul is quoting from the Psalms which expresses the state of mankind under the old agreement. After not finding anyone who could qualify for unity with God on their own merits, the Father sent His Son to seek and to save those who were wandering aimlessly in search of truth. And even though there are still none to this day who qualify based on their own righteousness, God willingly receives them as soon as they accept His Son. Salvation is not a treasure hunt, it is a gift from God by grace through His Son Jesus the Christ.

Verse 13-14: “Their words come from mouths that are like open graves. They use their lying tongues to deceive others.”⁴ “Their words are like the poison of snakes.”⁵ “Their mouths are full of cursing and angry words.”⁶

Paul continues to use the words of the Psalmists to express his disgust for those who come dressed in the robes of a peacemaker but in fact are only covering their real intentions of sowing discord and disharmony. And one of the factors that add to the dilemma is that these people are not satisfied to live in such a decadent condition themselves, but since they can’t escape on their own, they want everyone else to be just as miserable as they are. They are described as having characteristics that all point to decay, deceit, and dying.

David described them this way: “For nothing sincere can be found in their mouths, all you find there is disaster because their throats are like open graves. They use flattering tongues to deceive others.”⁷ It is what came out of their mouths that reminded David of an open tomb, their words were like the stench of decaying flesh. Jesus joins David in describing His opponents the same way: “You are hypocrites! You are like tombs that are painted white. Outside they look fine, but inside they are full of dead people’s bones and all kinds of filth.”⁸ Paul would not be quoting David’s psalms if he did not feel that some of these same traits were present among Jews living in Rome. Each carnal fault and character defect enumerated here can be seen as symbolic of what was being practiced.

Paul goes on with David’s words. This time targeting their tongues as weapons they use to wound and even prove fatal. David himself had a prayer for such people: “The Lord should cut off their lying lips and cut out their bragging tongues.”⁹ No wonder that the prophet Jeremiah saw such people this way: “They use their tongues like a bow; lies fly from their mouths like arrows. Lies, not truth, have grown strong in this land. They go from one sin to another.”¹⁰ David recognized that there was power in lying. He knew from personal experience because of what happened to Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah. And the reason it was so effective is that accomplished liars can make things seem to be the way they want them to be. This then will cause people to do things they otherwise would never think of doing. The prophet Ezekiel had to confront this during his time. He said to the children of Israel: “Your prophets say they have seen visions. They did their magic to see what will happen next. But everything they said would happen is a lie. They claim to speak for the Lord, but the Lord did not send them. And they still think that what they said is what will happen.”¹¹

Since the fall of Adam and Eve due to the deception and temptation provided by the serpent, there are few things viewed more sinister to the Jew than a snake. That’s why it is so remarkable that at the end of Moses’ life when he wrote a hymn for the children of Israel to sing, he referred to the possibility of God’s judgment because of their deteriorating ethics and values. He said it would happen because their vines had been transplanted from Sodom and their fields with seeds from Gomorrah. That’s why their vines are clusters of bitter, poisonous grapes, that makes their wine as deadly as snake poison, yes, like the cruel venom of vipers.¹²

It is not surprising then that this same sentiment made its way into Jewish teachings and writings. In fact, it’s in their Talmud where Rabbis discuss various things that are condemned as bad behavior. Among them are cases of young women flirting as they walked through market-place. It was said that: “They placed myrrh and balsam in their shoes and walked through the market-places of Jerusalem, and on coming near to the young men of Israel, they kicked their feet and spurted it on them, thus instilling them with passionate desire like with serpent’s poison.”¹³ Of course, the venom of a serpent was often used to paralyze their prey, putting them totally under their control.

And speaking of a mouth with a poisonous tongue, Paul uses Davids words to indict those from whose mouths flowed curses and bitterness. This comes from the psalm where David said of a particularly wicked person: “His mouth is full of curses, deceit, oppression; under his tongue, mischief, and injustice.”¹⁴ We find that individuals who went around cursing were not hard to find in David’s day. In one place it says of someone: “He loved to curse others, so let those bad things happen to him. He never blessed others, so don’t let good things happen to him. Cursing was a daily part of his life, like the clothes he wears. Cursing others became a part of him, like the water he drinks and the oil he puts on his body. So let curses cover him like the robe he wears and always surround him like a belt.”¹⁵

It is important to note that “cursing” in those days had a different connotation that it does today. At the present time, we use the vernacular and call it “cussing,” which means going around using bad words. But in David’s day, as well as in Jesus’ day, “cursing” mean wishing bad things on people. You might hear the same today when someone says in anger, “Drop dead!” or “I hope you break your neck!” The Apostle James found out that there were some among the believers who were guilty of this, so he told them: “We use our tongues to praise our Lord and Father, but then we curse people who were created in God’s likeness. These praises and curses come from the same mouth. My brothers and sisters, this should not happen.”¹⁶

Several early church scholars weigh in on Paul’s quote concerning curses and bitterness. For instance, Origen says: “Paul did not say that their lips were full of the poison of asps. For although many may be involved in sins of that kind, there are not many who are totally given over to the harm which that poison can do. On the other hand, there are many whose mouths are full of curses and bitterness. For whose mouth is so pure that he never curses? I am not speaking now of those who deserve to be cursed but of those whom God has not cursed, i.e., the just and innocent. For this vice is so prevalent and so automatic a trait of human weakness, especially with respect to those who are under or inferior to us, that many people would not even think to call it cursing.”¹⁷

Then Ambrosiaster states: “It is clear and obvious that evil people are always throwing curses and bitterness at the good in an attempt to harm and distract them.”¹⁸ This is still used today as a classical method of diverting an opponent from their original intent. When anyone becomes preoccupied in defending themselves, they are given little time to stated their intended position. Pelagius makes this point: “There is not just one kind of malicious talk. What is said out of malice is, without doubt, said recklessly.”¹⁹ So often what a person says in criticizing another to besmirch their reputation is analyzed based on the wording rather than on the intent. Even acceptable conversation when delivered out of hatred should be considered a malicious. We find this most often today in what we call “gossiping” or “backbiting.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER THREE (Lesson IX)

The prophet Isaiah saw something that gave him insight as to why people were not going to God for help. He said: “Look at the people going down to Egypt for help. They think the horses they get will save them. They hope the many chariots and powerful soldiers will protect them. But the people don’t trust the Holy One of Israel. They didn’t ask the Lord for help.”¹ To put it another way, if people think they can solve their own problems why do they need God’s help? But what the people didn’t know was that God sees what’s down the road and He knows that mankind does not have the ability or power to save themselves from the assured destruction that is coming. Only He and He alone possesses the authority to save them from everlasting punishment. That’s why in the meantime, His grace has made it possible to find salvation now while it is available. That’s why Isaiah pleaded with his people: “You should look for the Lord before it is too late. You should call to Him now, while He is near.”²

Sad to say, their problem was they were doing things in reverse. Instead of running to the Lord, they were running away from Him. This was God’s lament to Moses: “They have very quickly turned away from what I commanded them to do. They made a calf from melted gold for themselves. They are worshiping that calf and making sacrifices to it. The people have said, ‘Israel, these are the gods that led you out of Egypt.’”³ We can equate this to what happened in 1859 when Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace introduced their theory of evolution in a book “On the Origin of Species.” After this, instead of ascribing all creation to God as before, it was accepted as a chance evolution of all species from one original primary organism. As such, evolution became the golden calf of modern mankind. Although it is still an unproven theory, the general public and scientific community have accepted it as fact.

Even Solomon noted this tendency when he wrote: “There is one other thing I have learned. God made people to be majestic, but they find many ways to be moronic.”⁴ That’s no doubt why Isaiah concluded that since man could not right himself and walk straight. He put it this way: “You don’t know how to live in peace. You don’t do what is right and fair. You are crooked, and anyone who lives like that will never know true peace.”⁵ Then, speaking of the Messiah, Isaiah said: “Just like sheep, we all wandered away, each one going its own way. Yet, the Lord put all our guilt on Him.”⁶

As Paul saw it, everything God made to be beautiful and be displayed as evidence of His glory and majesty now lay on the trash heap of man’s unproven ideas. But it started a long time ago. Even before Noah’s flood, we find this lament: “The Lord was sorry that He had made people on the earth. It made Him very sad in His heart.”⁷ But He did not give up on His creation. He sent His only Son to live among mankind in order to lead them back to greatness. Some were like the five bridesmaids in His parable about the wedding that were looking for the groom and went to meet him. But others were like the five foolish who neglected to carry enough oil and ended up being barred at the door.⁸

Origen gives his impression of the statement that no one has done good, not even one as a hard saying and difficult to understand. “How is it possible that no one, Jew or Greek, has ever done anything good? Are we supposed to believe that nobody has ever shown hospitality, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, delivered the innocent from the hands of the powerful or done anything similar? It does not seem possible to me that Paul was intending to assert anything as incredible as that. I think that what he meant must be understood as follows. If someone lays the foundation for a house and puts up one or two walls or transports some building materials to the site, can he be said to have built the house, just because he has set to work on it? The man who will be said to have built the house is the one who has finished off each and every part of it. So I think that here the Apostle is saying that no one has done good in the sense that no one has brought goodness to perfection and completion. If we ask ourselves who is truly good and who has done good perfectly, we shall find only Him who said: ‘I am the good shepherd.’ And again: ‘The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.’⁹”¹⁰

With respect to Paul’s quote of Psalm 53 to show how corrupt people had become so that none of them were found by God to be seeking Him, Ambrosiaster says: “Do not be like Asa the king of Judah, who after receiving many blessings from God fell so far that when he suffered lameness in his feet he would not seek God even though there was a prophet present.”¹¹ And Pelagius writes: “One who does not understand does not seek. Or perhaps it is that one does not understand because one does not seek. One seeks for God by inquiring after His will.… The sinner has not known the will of His master.¹² ‘Know me, know my will,’ as the popular saying goes.”¹³

As a result of not seeking God’s help or advice, Paul points out that, as the Scriptures says of them, they all went down the wrong road. To this Pelagius says: “One who does not look for support is bound to fall away and become useless for the work for which he was made. But if there is no one who does good, in what sense does Paul later on accuse those who devour God’s people and ruin the needy? For they were not God’s people if they did not do good.… But this has more to do with the exposition of the psalm than with the Apostle’s concern here!”¹⁴

Then Ambrosiaster adds: “No one doubts that those who do not look to God for help are inclined to seek help from vain things, and vanity is an idol. Thus they become useless. Once that happens they cannot do good either, for those who have already fallen just go from bad to worse.”¹⁵ And then an early church bishop offers this: “Paul did not treat this passage as if it were prophetic but rather because what David said about transgressors was still a good summary of what was going on in Paul’s day. Even now we still cite texts of this kind in our sermons, because what they say can be applied to our congregations.”¹⁶

John Calvin finds Paul’s method of using Scripture one of his strongest points. Calvin writes: “He has heretofore used proofs or arguments to convince men of their iniquity; he now begins to reason from authority; and it is to Christians the strongest kind of proof, when authority is derived from the only true God. And hence let ecclesiastical teachers learn what their office is; for since Paul asserts here no truth but what he confirms by the sure testimony of Scripture, much less ought such a thing to be attempted by those, who have no other commission but to preach the gospel, which they have received through Paul and others.”¹⁷

John Bengel notes: “That all men are under sin, is very clearly proved from the vices which always, and everywhere, have been prevalent among mankind; just as, also, the internal holiness of Christ is displayed in the innocence of His words and actions. Paul, therefore, quotes with propriety David and Isaiah, although it is concerning the people of their own times that they complain, and that accompanied with an exception in favor of the godly [some of whom are always to be found], Psalm 14:4, etc. For that complaint describes men such as God looking down from heaven finds them to be, not such as He makes them by His grace.” Bengel goes on to comment on what it meant that they all turned away: “Declension [deterioration] supposes, that all had formerly been in the right path.— at the same time.— They have all become unprofitable. They have not the power of returning to do good. And on the contrary, in all these particulars they cling to what is evil, either secretly, or even openly. They have become unfit for any useful purpose.”¹⁸

Albert Barnes has quite a bit to say on this subject. When it comes to there being no one righteous to be found, Barnes says: “The design of the Apostle is not to prove that there were few or none pious. He is treating of the impossibility of justification by works, and alleges in proof that, according to the judgment of God in Psalm 14:1, there were none righteous, etc., in regard to their natural estate, or the condition in which man is, previous to his being justified. In this condition, all are deficient in righteousness, and have nothing to commend them to the divine favor. What people may afterward become by grace is another question, on which the apostle does not, in this place, enter. Whatever number of pious people, therefore, there might be in various places of the world, the argument of the Apostle is not in the least affected. It will hold good even in the millennium!”¹⁹

When it comes to there being no one who understands, Barnes notes: “In the Hebrew Psalm 14:2, God is represented as looking down from heaven to see, that is, to make investigation, whether there were any that understood or sought after Him. This circumstance gives not only high poetic beauty to the passage, but deep solemnity and awfulness. God, the searcher of hearts, is represented as making investigation on this very point. He looks down from heaven for this very purpose, to ascertain whether there were any righteous. In the Hebrew it is not asserted, though it is clearly and strongly implied, that none such were found. A fact the apostle clearly states… To understand is used in the sense of being wise; or of having such a state of moral feeling as to dispose them to serve and obey God. The word is often used in the Bible, not to denote a mere intellectual operation of the mind, but the state of the heart inclining the mind to obey and worship God.”²⁰ As such, says Barnes they have all become unprofitable. He writes: “This word in Hebrew means to become ‘putrid’ and ‘offensive,’ like fruit that is spoiled. In Arabic, it is applied to ‘milk’ that becomes sour. Applied to moral subjects, it means to become corrupt and useless. They are of no value in regard to works of righteousness.”²¹

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” – Anonymous

I like what one writer had to say on this subject: “The most marked difference between stupidity and genius is that -usually- the stuff coming from a genius makes sense -if you can understand it. The stupid stuff does NOT make sense. It is, well, stupid. You see it, read or hear it and you know instantly without a doubt: GARBAGE. Admittedly, it’s not always THAT obvious. Sometimes it takes more than just an attentive mind of at least average intelligence. Sometimes it takes a person that is well versed with the subject concerned, perhaps even highly competent to judge appropriately if something is truly brilliant (i.e. has the touch of genius) or is just elegantly formulated nonsense that sounds very clever but is effectively complete rubbish.”¹

Albert Einstein and other geniuses down through time only took us so far with their brilliance. Then it took another generation to build on the knowledge those geniuses left to the world and built on it. But when it comes to being ignorant because there is no willingness to learn or change one’s mind even when indisputable facts are presented, the path of stupidity lies unlimited before those who blindly follow it. Proof of this is the fact that no matter how many times they make the same mistakes, they repeat them over and over again. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

Child’s Definition of LOVE.

A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to 8 year-olds, “What does love mean?” The answers they got were broader and deeper than anyone could have imagined. See what you think:

“When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn’t bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That’s love.” Rebecca – age 8

“When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You know that your name is safe in their mouth.” Billy – age 4

“Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on cologne and when they go out they tell each other how good they smell.” Karl – age 5

“Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries without making them give you any of theirs.” Chrissy – age 6

“Love is what makes you smile when you’re tired.” Terri – age 4

“Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK.” Danny – age 7

“Love is when you kiss all the time. Then when you get tired of kissing, you still want to be together and you talk more. My Mommy and Daddy are like that. But they look gross when they kiss.” Emily – age 8

“Love is what’s in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen,” Bobby – age 7

“If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate.” Nikka – age 6

“There are two kinds of love. Our love. God’s love. But God makes both kinds of them.” Jenny – age 8

“Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it every day.” Noelle – age 7

“Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well.” Tommy – age 6

“During my piano recital, I was on a stage and I was scared. I looked at all the people watching me and saw my daddy waving and smiling. He was the only one doing that. I wasn’t scared anymore.” Cindy – age 8

“My mommy loves me more than anybody. You don’t see anyone else kissing me before I go to sleep at night.” Clare – age 6

“Love is when Mommy gives Daddy the best piece of chicken.” Elaine -age 5

“Love is when Mommy sees Daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is handsomer than Robert Redford.” Chris – age 7

“Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day.” Mary Ann – age 4

“I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes and then has to go out and buy new ones.” Lauren – age 4

“When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars come out of you.” Karen – age 7

“You really shouldn’t say ‘I love you’ unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot, but people always forget.” Jessica – age 8

Such thoughts and definitions of love can only come from innocent children who have not yet had their minds contaminated with all the suspicion, doubt, and fear that haunt adults. No wonder Jesus talked about how out of the mouths of babes much wisdom can come. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

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