God’s Covenant Faithfulness in Judging Sin

PRAY

INTRO: (Where we are in Romans) Paul has just finished saying: A ‘true Jew’ is one who has experienced a change of heart by the Spirit. The external sign of circumcision is insufficient for salvation. Possessing the law is likewise useless unless one keeps the law. God will judge everyone justly according to their works and by their accountability to the knowledge they have (to the revelation received).

We can see in the text for today that Paul anticipates more pushback from fellow Jews: How can you say God is judging the Jews in the same way he is judging pagans? Why would God judge his own covenant people, the descendants of Abraham? How can God do that and still be true to his covenant promises? How is God “in the right” for this way of handling his covenant with Israel? Paul will answer: yes, God is faithful to his covenant, which includes judgment for sin. In fact, God remains righteous by judging sin.

Romans 3:1–8 ESV

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” 5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

In this broader section where Paul is showing that he and his fellow Jews cannot be saved by merely possessing the law or by the sign of physical circumcision, but that true circumcision is a matter of the heart as a work of the Spirit, Paul now briefly proves that…

KEY IDEA: God has not abrogated his covenant faithfulness to Abraham’s descendants by holding them accountable for sin. To the contrary, in judging sin he remains righteous and consistent. (Romans 3:1-8)

[abrogated - repealed or done away with his formal agreement]

Paul will continue soon in Romans: In fact, God has made provision for his perfect righteousness through his promised Messiah, Jesus, who is the center of all covenant promises with Israel. Therefore, the righteousness we need must be received by faith in Jesus the Messiah.

How do we know that this is the point Paul is making? Let’s trace the rapid-fire question and answer session Paul has with his objector to this line of gospel thinking. In this part of Paul’s use of the diatribe style, we learn that at least some of these questions have very real teeth, where Paul (and presumably other gospel proclaimers like him) have been slandered as being antinomian, or teaching a kind of “cheap grace” that doesn’t expect holy living before a holy God.

Paul leads off with a couple of questions and answers which show that God has not abrogated (repealed or done away with his formal agreement) his covenant through Abraham, but that also includes holding Jews accountable for sin, for breaking the covenant.

God remains faithful to his covenant, even in judging Jews for their sin. (verses 1-4)

Consider first the question and answer of vv. 1&2.

Romans 3:1 ESV

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?

Q: So then is there any value in being an ethnic Jew (whom God covenanted with through Abraham)?

If what you say is true, then what is the point of being a Jew? Why be circumcised at all? Is there any advantage or benefit to being an ethnic Jew and physically circumcised (according to the Abrahamic covenant)?

Romans 3:2 ESV

2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

A: Yes, and heading the list is having received “the oracles of God.”

There are great blessings to being a Jew, Paul says. (There are more advantages listed in Rom 9:4-5.)

Romans 9:4–5 ESV

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

[But here in chapter 3] Paul will only briefly answer what he develops at much greater length in chapters 9-11. Here he says that chief among the advantages for Jews, or heading the list, is that God has entrusted this people with his oracles (literally refers to authoritative sayings). What Paul is talking about is special revelation.

These oracles of God can refer to all of the OT Scriptures, which is all, in one way or another, prophetic revelation from God (not predominantly in foretelling, although that is included, but especially speaking directly from God what he wanted to convey… by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: 2 Pet 1:21). In particular, with what follows in these verses, the law of Moses seems to be front and center, which includes the giving of the law with both covenant promises and conditions. (Or we might even say one condition: the condition of obedience that springs from faith.)

Application: In our day and situation, we could ask: Is there any advantage to growing up in a Christian home? To having the Bible used and taught in your house, as the authoritative word of God? Yes—absolutely. But privilege also brings responsibility. Knowledge without obedience only increases accountability. We must respond rightly to what God is revealing about himself, and about us.

Paul fills out this train of thought for his fellow Jews with another question and answer in vv. 3&4.

Romans 3:3 ESV

3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

Q: But you’re not suggesting that some Jews being unfaithful would stop God from being faithful to his covenant promises?

I’m convinced that Paul expects that he and other Jews are aligned on this: an unfaithful (or faithless) response to God’s revelation does not alter God’s own covenant faithfulness. Agreed, God will be true to his covenant promises.

Romans 3:4 ESV

4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”

Does the faithlessness of some nullify the faithfulness of God? Pauls says…

A: Absolutely not! God will be true even if every person is a liar. However, God’s faithfulness also includes justly judging sin.

God is true means that God is consistent with his righteous character. - Even if every human being were untruthful and unfaithful, God would still be faithful and true because it is his very nature.

Application: We live in a world where many question God because of the failures of His people. But let us remember: God’s character is not defined by ours. When we fall, He remains constant. When the church disappoints, Christ remains holy. Never judge God by the inconsistency of man.

Back to Paul’s point: That some lacking faith would not nullify God’s faithfulness to his promises. This “some,” even though it was actually “many,” also meant that there were at least “few” who kept faith in God and walked in obedience from the heart. There is a significant theme in the Bible of God preserving a remnant for himself, even when many disobey and reap the punishment that have sown. By the remnant God is preserving his plan to fulfill his promises!

But this raises a broader question for Paul: Did God promise to save every individual Jew without condition? Here, when he quotes David from Psalm 51:4, Paul catches by the tail any Jew who thinks that being a descendant of Abraham is automatically sufficient to save him. There were indeed blessings to Jews (in their corporate identity, as the nation of Israel) because of God’s covenant faithfulness… but that would not save individual Israelites who broke covenant with God through faithlessness.

What about God’s justice in judging sin? Are there not consequences for Jews when they are faithless covenant breakers? Are there not consequences if we do not take God at his word and respond in faith?

God is faithful in judging as well as blessing. - That seems to be the intent of Paul quoting David from Psalm 51:4.

Psalm 51:4 ESV

4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

In fact, the truly penitent person (who confesses their sin, like David) is one who realizes that God is justified in justly judging sin. God’s just judgment is consistent with his faithfulness. Or we could say that… God’s just judgment on the faithless only proves his faithfulness. [repeat]

Where do we, the readers of Romans, know that Paul is heading with this line of reasoning? He concludes that every person is a liar and sinner, and God is therefore vindicated in the justice of his judgment upon us. Here God is particularly justified in his judgment of unbelieving Jews, who do not confess and repent as David did. And because we are justly condemned as faithless liars, God himself will provide the righteousness we need through Jesus Christ and the means to saving faith by the Holy Spirit.

But like David, those in the wrong must confess that God is being just in judging our sin. Do you understand the necessity and goodness of God’s faithfulness in judging justly?

As Paul has been here anticipating and answering questions regarding God’s fairness in judgment, he shifts from the naturally logical questions concerning God’s faithfulness to his covenant promises, to human arguments leveled against God and the gospel that are, at their root, theologically illogical questions that arise from a desire to excuse our sin and shift blame.

In vv. 5-8, Paul essentially clarifies:

God remains righteous in his character, especially in judging sin as sin. (verses 5-8)

[repeat] See again how verse 5 begins to take a different approach, springing from the quotation that God is right to judge sin.

Romans 3:5 ESV

5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

Although Paul himself verbalizes these complaints (“what shall we say” and “I speak in a human way”), it is evident that he is intentionally verbalizing the kinds of theologically irrational complaints that we tend to make about God’s justice.

- Theologically irrational complaint: But if our unrighteousness serves to comparatively make God’s righteousness look good, then is God unjust to inflict wrath on us for it?

Hey, I sin because I’m human (even a human who has God’s law). I’m limited; I’m fallible. I’m not God, so it’s not my fault that I can’t be as good as God. My sin just proves that only God is God. How then is God fair to inflict judgment on me for committing evil?

What might appear to be logical reasoning can in fact be completely illogical by ignoring a sine qua non, an essential premise, in this case about God being God. The starting point that has been established in this conversation already, the sine qua non, is absolutely necessary to the character of God: he is righteous. God is just.

You may emotionally want to complain about the perfect justice of God, but you can’t shift blame onto God for being God, especially when you are asking God to be other than he is. God is just. He cannot be unjust.

“I speak in human terms” (or with a human argument) shows that Paul is acutely aware that this is a secularized argument that does not account for a sound understanding of God. It arises from bad theology. Paul’s answer to this blasphemous question (this is human complaint; not a godly one)… Paul’s answer is another rhetorical question that shuts down the irrationality of asking God to be anything other than just in his judgment.

Romans 3:6 ESV

6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

As we have shown, Paul says, God can’t judge us (Israel, people of the covenant) by some other standard, because even his judgment of the world is based upon the righteousness of his own self.

Again, the Q is: Can God be unrighteous in any way, especially in inflicting wrath on us for sin? A: No, because then by what standard would he be judging the world if he is unrighteous?

- Theologically rational answer: God judges justly because he cannot do other than he is—righteous.

The “May it never be” retort in v. 4 and here again in v. 6 is an emphatic rhetorical response that suggests the absurdity of the opposing objection. Paul seeks to show that this argument is a theological absurdity.

So Paul’s theologically rational answer is a rhetorical question: Would we claim that God is unrighteous to punish sin? No, because that’s exactly backwards! If that were so—that God is not righteous in inflicting wrath on unrighteousness—then how can he judge the sins of the world? This is a theologically untenable position, that a just God (a righteous God) would not judge evil behavior.

God must be God. He cannot do otherwise but be consistent with himself.

Again, in verse 7 Paul asks a similar question to the one in v. 5, this time with a more individualistic thrust of the complainer, and with an emphasis excusing sin to somehow elevate God’s glory.

Romans 3:7 ESV

7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

What’s going on here?

- Complaint repeated, with a more ‘holy’ sounding twist: Why am I condemned as a sinner if my lie just makes God’s truth abound to his glory?

Paul doesn’t answer this question, because the answer is one he has already given: God is righteous. He justly judges sin because “just” is who he is.

Plus, the additional patronizing language itself is meant to be patently self-contradictory. If God’s truth and glory is really what you seek to elevate, then there is no longer any place for excusing your sin and blaming God.

Finally, Paul takes this even further, with a question that is evidently not merely hypothetical but has actually been leveled in some form by his opponents, those who stand against the teaching of salvation by grace through faith in the Messiah.

Romans 3:8 NASB95

8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.

I read this one to you again in the NASB because this even more literal order of phrases is actually helpful (NIV has it in this order too). Stating that it up front shows clearly, before the question is even unfolded, that some are slanderously claiming that Paul teaches the following theological absurdity.

- More theological absurdity: Why not just go the whole way in fact and promote sin that good may come (presumably the good of salvation by grace through faith)?

Possibly even in Rome, Paul is being slandered as antinomian (against the law) and promoting license to sin. Surely the accusers must twist such teaching as what Paul says in Rom 5:20 “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,” by which he means that God’s grace in the obedience of Jesus is sufficient to make us righteous (Ro 5:19), whereas the law we don’t keep proves our sinfulness and inability.

Paul does not teach “cheap grace,” for he will say just a couple verses later in Romans 6:1–2 “1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?”

So this accusation, which Paul revisits later, is patently false, and here the point is that, like these other questions in vv. 5-8, is a theological absurdity. Deliberately sinning further would prove nothing; it would only further our condemnation. Those who are in Christ and have the Spirit of God may still sin, but they do not desire to deliberately sin.

Paul ends this with a deliberate hint of irony in the language he chooses.

- Their condemnation is just.

Their condemnation, their judgment (the legal decision, the verdict, that leads to corresponding punishment)… the condemnation is just. It is righteous (in accordance with what is right, like the absolute righteousness/justice of God).

Now it’s admittedly hard to tell if Paul is saying that their charge against such teaching is just. If Paul taught what they accuse him of, they are right to condemn it. Or is Paul saying that they are justly condemned for this slander, just as they are justly condemned for sin, as is the whole argument from 2:1-3:8. I lean towards this second intent. They are justly condemned for this slander against God and his gospel.

Conclusion:

We should have gotten the point from Paul today that God is just in condemning sin, because of who he is, and he is faithful to his covenant promises, also because of who he is. “Let God be true though everyone else were a liar.”

As we draw this to a close, then, let me ask a few simple questions for summary and application.

1. Why does Paul go to all this trouble (with unbelieving arguments) in a letter to Christians in Rome?

As Paul tackles misunderstandings of the gospel, and even misrepresentations of his teaching, this helps Paul’s listeners (even though his audience is primarily believers) in at least two ways:

- Handling flawed reasoning and accusations in their evangelism

- As Colin Kruse (PNTC) notes, “The questions he poses are not merely hypothetical but reflect real objections to his gospel to which he must respond.” Similar questions could prove problematic for Paul’s audience, so he helps address them.

- Being clear with both Gentiles and Jews about their standing before God, for focused attention on their unity in Christ

- …in order to help them in understanding that will lead to Christian unity. (Jews will not abuse their privileges as a weapon against non-Jews, and Gentiles will not disregard and dishonor Jews, with all that God has chosen to do in and through them… especially these ones who are the remnant, who are Messianic Jews who trust in Jesus for salvation.)

2. What do we do when people make plausible-sounding arguments against God’s truth?

- Trust God’s word. Know that God’s word is his infallible revelation to us, and it based on the consistency of his own character. The Bible is therefore also necessarily authoritative for our lives (and eternity).

- Start with theological consistency. Begin with the basis of theological consistency of God’s revelation about himself, and then logic will flow from there. If you don’t, there will be certain areas of life, the most crucial ones, where you will reduce your thinking to irrational absurdity. Remember that even logic, rationality, arises from the God who is perfect in logic. Our logic must flow from truth about God, and therefore be consistent with his truth beyond our limitation. Then things really do make more sense. (Part of this can only come by God saving us and changing us by his Spirit so that we are spiritual beings who are able to understand things from a spiritual perspective… of true reality.)

3. Respond rightly to God’s righteousness in worship and confession.

- The complete righteousness and faithfulness of God is what makes him God, and it’s why he alone is worthy of worship.

- Rather than fleeing from God’s righteousness, we must run to this righteous God, confessing sin and seeking his merciful forgiveness (in Christ Jesus).

(We do not have God in a pickle. We are asking for his mercy… but it is a mercy which he has promised and provided by his grace already proffered in the Lord Jesus. But if you refuse to confess your sin as sin, if you deny your guilt, then you cannot receive the gracious gift of the Messiah’s righteousness in exchange for your guilt.

PRAY

———