Alright, in Romans 3, look at
verse 21, read down to the end of the chapter, and the last
verse has our text of the day, verse 31. We've been all around
this the last few weeks, but there's more here, I think. Verse
21. But now the righteousness of
God without the law is manifest, being witnessed by the law and
the prophets. Even the righteousness of God
by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe,
for there is no difference. for all have sinned and come
short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has
sent forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to
declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God, to declare, I say, at
this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the
justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law
of faith. Therefore we conclude that a
man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is He the
God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the
Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Seeing it is one God which shall
justify the circumcision, that is the Jew, by faith, and the
uncircumcision, that is the Gentile, through faith, Do we then make
void the law through faith? God forbid, yea, we establish
the law. Now, this verse, 31, and the
subject that is there has been stuck in my craw for quite a
while now. But I didn't seem to have enough
light or knowledge or revelation on it to really to deal with
it, even though we have recently had two studies that came very
close to the one here this morning. First of all, we looked at Christ,
the grand object of our faith. Then we looked at how faith establishes
and agrees with grace from Romans 4 and verse 16 in the saving
of a sinner. We saw that faith in no way distracts
from the grace of God in Christ Jesus. They're not in competition
to see who can have the most honor. Faith and grace so sweetly
agree one with another that Paul said, it is by faith and order
that it might be by grace. But then, what about the law
and faith? The text that we have taken this
morning. How do they relate? How do they
stand with one another? How do we reconcile them, faith
and grace, and what Paul has said? Are they antagonistic one
unto the other? How do we give each one their
due, faith and the law as well? Also, why is it here in this
place that Paul feels the need to raise with his readers this
question and then answer it in the way that he does. And who
might they be that considered Paul's gospel antinomian and
took offense at him stripping the law of its ability to justify
and provide a righteousness? Now, the first objectors in the
New Testament were, without question, the legalistic Jews of that day,
and who took the gospel as making void the law. If the gospel be
true, gratuitous, free justification, without works and without law,
then it seems that it is making void the law. John Gill said
in a sermon preached long ago, in fact, it was on March the
22nd, 1793, that John Gill said this in a sermon, and I quote,
this was an objection that was common in the mouth of the Jews,
unquote. And sad to say, it is an objection
that is kept alive in the present time and among many who name
the name of Christianity. But it was a charge that was
made not only against Paul, but first of all against the Lord
Jesus Christ Himself, then it was made against the Apostle,
Then it was made against Paul, and it is still being made in
our day, against the servants of the Lord and the gospel of
Christ. Now to prove all of that, I want
us to backtrack a little bit and consider a passage from the
Sermon on the Mount. You'll find it, if you turn there,
in Matthew chapter 5 and verse 17 and verse 18. And it was spoken
by the Lord in His Sermon on the Mount, as we call it. And it said this, Think not that
I am come to destroy the law or the prophet. I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfill. For truly, I say unto you, till
heaven and earth shall pass, one shot or one tittle That is,
not one little iota, not one little Greek point or mark, not
one of them, the little hook that was made to distinguish
one Hebrew word from another, shall not pass away, except all
of it therefore come to pass. Now the Lord is speaking, of
course, of the Old Testament Scripture in that passage, which
were known as the Law, and the Psalm, and the Prophets. That's
how the Jew distinguished the Old Testament Word of God. And
from these words of our Lord, it becomes evident unto us that
they were of the mind and the opinion that they had come to
the conclusion that some way the Lord Himself would set aside
the authority and the precepts of their sacred oracles and bring
in another way altogether. Now, the same charge was brought
against Stephen. You'll find that in chapter 6
and 11 through verse 14. They said that he blasphemed
Moses, that he spoke strong words against that holy place and that
He said that Jesus would change the custom that Moses had delivered
unto them. The same was brought against
the Apostle Paul in Acts 21 and verse 21. The Jews heard that Paul taught
among the Jew that the Gentiles were not obliged to circumcise
their children and that they were to forsake the law of Moses
and forego circumcision even to their own Jewish children
and set aside the custom and the rights that had come down
unto them from Moses. And in Acts 21 and verse 28,
some militant Jews who had come from Asia saw Paul in the temple
of a Jew in Jerusalem. and they went absolutely ballistic
and they began to shout loudly and point at Paul and to get
in his face and to shout loudly. This is the man that teaches
people everywhere against the law and against this place. Then down in verse 31, they attempted
to kill the apostle because they imagined that He had brought
His friend Trophimus into the temple and had defiled that holy
place, and so they attempted to kill Paul. Now with these
things in our mind as a background, we can understand, I believe,
why it is that Paul feels compelled to deal with a question that
he does in Romans 3 and verse 31. And I think that we should
keep in our mind that Paul is writing this epistle to professing
Christian. Some were Jew. Some were Gentile. But Paul is writing these things
to those that profess to be Christian. And in chapter 1, verse 6 and
verse 7, he refers to them as such. They called of Christ Jesus. Beloved of God called to be saint. Then it's there in verse 8, that
He said, Your faith is spoken of throughout all of the world,
so that these that were called Jews at Rome were such as were
called by God or by Christ. They were called aside, called
into the profession of the gospel of our Lord. And yet something
still gave them pause. That is, those Jews, that the
gospel seemed to the Jewish mind to make the law obsolete and
irrelevant unto them. And that's the conclusion that
came into their mind. And this may be traced to the
fact, I think, as Robert Haldane wrote on the subject in his commentary
on Romans, a very good one by the way, quote, the gospel held
forth a method of justification or righteousness very, very different
from that of the law and was contrary to the bias of the Jew,
unquote. And that certainly sums it up
well. Now, why don't we flip ahead to Romans chapter 10 for
a short and a quick look where Paul makes a comparison there
between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness
of faith, that is, the righteousness that is in the gospel. Now, he states his premise. We're
in Romans chapter 10. He states his premise in the
second and the third verse. I bear them record that they
have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being
ignorant of God's righteousness, going about to establish their
own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness
of God." That's Paul's premise. Then we come to verse 4, and
there we read, For Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness
to every one that believeth. Then, beginning with verse 5
of Romans chapter 10, Paul, using principally the writings of Moses,
compares, or should we say contrast, the two kinds of righteousness
that were of interest unto them. So look at verse 5. First of
all, Moses described the righteousness which is of the law, that the
man which doeth those things shall live by them. This is a reference to Leviticus
18 and verse 5, which says, ye shall therefore keep my statutes
and my judgment, which if a man do, he shall live in them." And
by the way, Paul quotes this same verse again in Galatians
chapter 3 and verse 12. Now there in the context of Leviticus
chapter 18, the first reference seems to be to temporal or physical
life. That is, if they obeyed the law,
It would give them long days, length of days up on the earth. Many abominable practices are
condemned and forbidden. Leviticus 18 is a dark chapter
in the Word of God with regard to sin and depravity and the
extent of the vileness of human nature. Because there in Leviticus
chapter 18, the abominable practices that are condemned, some of them
are incest with family members, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality. All these things are forbidden
and they carry the death penalty and would defile the land when
they entered in. We read in Leviticus 18 and verse
29, For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations shall
be cut off out of from among the people. That is, they were
to be killed, they were to be put to death if they committed
these abominations. Hence God's word, whosoever keepeth
these things shall live by them. Now, for one to obtain righteousness
by the law, for one to get justified by or using the law, they must
give it an absolute, unending, perfect obedience. And this is
an impossibility once one is a sinner. in the sight of God. Thus only in Christ is the demand,
the perfection of the law fulfilled. Only in Christ. Yet John Murray
said in his commentary on Romans that here Paul uses Leviticus
18 and verse 5 to illustrate the principle of law righteousness. That's what Paul is using it
for in Romans chapter 10. Now in Romans 10, let's look
at verse 6 through verse 8 where he describes the righteousness
of faith, using a passage again from Moses, and that would be
Deuteronomy chapter 30, verse 12 through verse 14, which Paul
somewhat allegorizes, quote, the righteousness of faith speaks
on this wise. There is a clear revelation. The word of God is near. The word of faith which we preach,
that is the gospel, that with the heart one believes unto righteousness. We have that there in Romans
10. So here's the contract. The righteousness
of the law speaks on this wide. The one who does them shall live. The righteousness of faith speaks
on this wise, that he soever believeth shall not perish but
have everlasting life. Now, with all of that behind
us, let's go back to Romans chapter 3 and verse 31, our text today. And the question for us now is,
does faith nullify, does faith make void, the law of God. We notice Paul's answer, his
answer is God forbid, in no way let it not be, in no wise at
all. Now the fuller answer, yea we
actually establish, we actually uphold, we actually make stand
the law by faith. Now this verse gives us plenty
here for us to chew on, to consider, and to wonder about. Such as
the meaning of the word establish. How is that word used here? The way Paul uses the word law
here in this verse of the scripture. Now the word translated here
in our English establish is histamine. And at least 150 times you're
going to find this word in our New Testament. It's rendered
mostly by stood, or stand, or standing. The majority of times
you'll find it rendered stand, standing, stood, or something
of that nature. Some variation of stood is how
it is most often translated. To cause to stand is the meaning
of the word. And the word establish appears
at least three times in the King James Version. It is in Romans
3.31. It is in chapter 3. And verse 10, whence the Jew
sought to establish their own righteousness. In chapter 10,
that's the word also. To set up or to make stand. To stand up and make it to stand
their own righteousness using the law. Then we have it in Hebrews
10 and verse 9. where the first covenant is taken
away, that it might establish the second. That is, that the
first might be abolished, that the second might be made to stand,
or be stable, or be valid, made to stand. We must recognize that
Paul, especially in the Roman epistle, uses the word law in
so many ways that it is actually hard to keep up with them. Of
the law of God, yes, but also as a ruling principle. He uses
the word law to mean a principle that rules. He speaks of the
law of faith, chapter 3 and verse 27. Chapter 8 and verse 2, the
law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, that is the rule
And then in 7 and 2, he talks about a woman and the law of
her husband. And in 3 and 21, he speaks out
the Scripture. And then in 2 and 14, the Gentiles
are a law unto themselves. So the word law is used with
various latitude in the book of Romans and we have to settle
its meaning principally by looking at it in its immediate or various
context. Then along this line, in that
section here from 3.20 1 to 31, we might mention that in the
Greek the articles are not there. It is not THE law with an article
because, as one suggested, these Paul writes to at Rome were some
of them former Jew, some of them former Gentile, And so he wishes,
therefore, to make an absolute negation, not law of any kind. So he says simply, without law. Paul says, without law, the absoluteless,
says Murphy, Murray, of this negation must absolutely stand
and not be toned down. He includes the self-righteous
Jews with the Mosaic Code. He includes the pagan moralists
with their supposed ethical laws that they imagine make them good
in the sight of God. But justification, Paul said,
righteousness is completely, absolutely separate and apart
from works of law. Righteousness does not come by
works of law, therefore neither justification. This means that
in justification nothing about it has to do with or depends
upon works of law, law of any kind. And Paul clearly stated
in Romans 3 and 21, righteousness apart from law. He said, now
the righteousness of God is manifested apart from the law. Look down
at Romans 3 and 28. Justified without the deeds of
the law, we conclude. Both Jew and Gentile are justified
in one and the same way in verse 29 and verse 30. which is by
faith. So Paul is saying there is only
one way of justification, whether it is Jew or whether it is Gentile,
only one way of justification. Gill said, he thought, that the
word faith here is used perhaps in a two-fold way in the New
Testament scripture. Number one, the grace of faith,
that is, the grace or virtue, the gift of faith that God gives
unto his elect. Belief in Christ, which Christ
is the object of that faith and called the faith of God's elect
in Titus chapter one. But secondly, faith is at times
in the New Testament referring to the doctrine of faith, Christian
principle, Christian preaching, Christian teaching, and such
like. Now another point, we may exclude
the ceremonial law altogether. from consideration here in verse
31, which was given to the Jews only, and not this law was written
in the heart of the Gentile. It was not the ceremonial law
that was written there. And this law was temporary. It was a shadow of things to
come, and Christ answered all the types, all of the shadows
of that ceremonial law, and then abolished it in His death upon
the cross. So says Colossians 2, and verse
14, He nailed it onto His cross. Thus, does law here in Romans
3 and 31 refer to the Old Testament scriptures themselves, the writing
of the Old Testament scripture, or to the law in general, since
there is no article or to the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments,
as we call them, since whichever is meant is said not to be destroyed
by faith, but is established by faith in Christ and through
the gospel. Paul has been so adamant up to
this point that justification is strictly by faith only, and
separate and apart from the law, and then says that faith establishes
the law. So we need to work on that. Now
this cannot be a ploy by Paul to pacify the Jew who took offense
at thinking that the law had been made void or had abolished. and lost its ability to justify,
which it never had. For Paul did not give on any
truth simply to please and to pacify men. I don't think any
could ever accuse Paul of acting in that way. So let's bring in
a passage from the epistle to the Galatians that might help
us along on our way. Now Galatians has much in common
with the book of Romans. You find many of the things said
in both of them. A shorter version, however, in
Galatians. But both of them deal with the
contrast between law and between faith. And in both epistles,
Paul uses Abraham as a model of justification by faith. For
Abraham was a much revered name and person in the mind of the
Jew. Now the particular verse is Galatians
3 and verse 12, where Paul says in this one, and the law is not
a faith. Now our text in Romans said we
establish the law by faith. In Galatians he said the law
is not of faith. And of course we have to take
both of them in their immediate context and how it fits in the
context. What circumstances Paul makes
the statement, the law is not of faith. As in Romans, he sets
forth Abraham as the model of justification that they which
believe are blessed with faithful father Abraham. While as many
as are of the works of the law are under the curse in Galatians
3 and verse 10. Not only is there the case of
Abraham, there is also the testimony of the prophet Habakkuk. And
chapter 2 and verse 4, the just shall live by faith. By the way, this is quoted three
times also in the New Testament. Now, let's read in Galatians
3.11-12 and see if we get some help with Romans 3.31. Romans 3, I'm sorry, Galatians
3, 11 and 12. But that no man is justified
by the law in the sight of God, it is evident, for the just shall
live by faith, and the law is not of faith, but the man that
doeth them shall live by them. Now first, it is evident here
that Abraham was justified and that he was justified by faith. But also in verse 11, it is evident
and clear that no one is justified by the law before God. Because Scripture said, the just
shall live by faith. Habakkuk 2 and verse 4. Then look at verse 12, Galatians
3. The law is not of faith. What does that mean? Methinks
that with John Brown that Paul means that the way of justification
by the law is not based on faith, not at all. It has nothing to
do with faith. It has nothing to do with believing. The law to justify does not require
faith. For remember Romans 10 and verse
5, Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, that the
man that doeth those things shall live in them. John Gill wrote,
quote, the law for justification does not consist in faith in
Christ, nor does it require it, nor does the law take any notice
of one's faith." Because it is not believing, it is not believing
what the law requires, rather it is the obedience that the
law requires by which one must walk, or to gain justification
in that manner, if one did and if it were possible. So Gill
put it this way, quote, the law treats not with men as believers,
but as a doer at the point of justification." That is, the
law does that. The law is not of faith. In Galatians 2, 15 through 19,
as part of his rebuke, to the apostle Peter for his
behavior and actions down at the church at Antioch. Literally,
Paul says unto him, his fellow apostle and his fellow Jew. In Galatians 2.15, We Jews by
nature. That is, we who are born natural
Jews and by ancestry. We're not Gentiles. We are descendants
of Abraham, true and proper. And as if Paul says to him, we
who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles, What
have we done? He is, as it is, asking Peter
this question. We. What have we done? What course have we taken? We, who are Jews by nature and
not Gentile. Well, I'll yield to John Eady
and to John Brown to analyze the words of Paul on their justification. John Eady said, born and bred
Jews as we are, we are or were obliged to renounce our trust
in Judaism, for it was powerless to justify us. That's what we
did. Paul is saying to Peter, we who
are true Jews had to go outside of Judaism and away from the
law to find justification in Christ. Again, John Brown added
this comment, quote, We Jews have found it necessary to abandon
the law and to take ourselves entirely to Christ for our justification."
That's what Paul is telling Peter. He says, we Jews by breeding,
not Gentiles, not even proselytes, not Mohammedans, but we who have
had the law are led to abandon it as a means of justification
that faith in Christ might stand us justified and provide for
us a righteousness. Still Paul says in our first
text, by faith we establish the law. Now that's a hard thing
for me. Maybe this clears a veil to you.
But there are some who think that Paul is talking about sanctification
here. When he says that, we establish
the law by living a godly, sanctified life devoted unto the Lord. That once a person is brought
to faith, they practice then out of their faith the precepts
of the law. And such commentators say, in
this way the law is established. But as Robert Haldane points
out on this particular text here, the discussion regards justification
only. Paul has only the subject of
justification in his mind. And as yet, the apostle has said
nothing on the subject of sanctification. And since sanctification is so
imperfect, It is so erratic. It is never perfect in the life
of a Christian. Could such establish the law? Could an imperfect sanctification
then establish the law? Note, Paul deals with sanctification,
chapter 6, chapter 7, chapter 8, and he does it very thoroughly. to prove that free justification
is not a licentious libertine doctrine. That because one is
justified by grace does not mean that they will take it as a license
to sin. Well, then the question comes
back, how then does faith establish the law? In the sense that Paul
means here in this particular passage, and consistent with
the righteousness of God, all of those things are in our minds. Now, contrary to what many claim,
the law is not in the least slighted by free justification." Let's
say that again. The law is not in the least slighted
by free justification through faith in Christ. The forgiving
of personal transgressions of the law does not rob the law
of its due. D-U-E. Else would God be unrighteous
in forgiving and justifying the lawbreakers in that way. But God has set forth Christ
as a propitiation for the remission of sin. In Romans 3 and verse
25, He has caused Christ to bear the curse of the law, to hang
upon a tree, Galatians 3 and 13. He has made him sin for us,
2 Corinthians 5 and verse 21. With regard to the law, Christ
has done two things to the honor of God and to the blessing of
the elect. Number one, he has kept it perfectly. Never transgressing in any part
or any way. The law of God. He gave the law
all of its due. He obeyed it fully to the satisfaction
of God so that the law has no quarrel with Christ on his personal
account. But secondly, though he was innocent,
not guilty. Yet he bore the curse of the
law, consisting in death, the death of the cross and hanging
upon a tree. He died the same death as one
under the curse of the law, back under Deuteronomy chapter 21,
where they killed a man for his transgression, hanged him on
a tree by the side of the way, until evening, that every one
passed by knew he was hanged, he was accursed under the curse
of the law. And yet Christ endured all these
things, not on his account, not for his sake, and not as a private
individual, but as the head and the legal representative. He acted as the surety of the
elect. He pledged to answer our debt
and to pay our bill of sins. Because of that solidarity union
between Christ and the elect, the righteousness of the law
is imputed to and fulfilled in the elect. Romans 8 and verse
4, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
us, that like Abraham, faith is imputed for righteousness. Faith in Christ can bring peace,
assurance, and hope. Works of law cannot and never
will, for such must always be asking the law, what lack I yet,
what yet must I do? Armenians object to imputed righteousness. They don't like the idea of a
perfect righteousness imputed, put to the account of the children
of God simply through the grace and mercy of our Lord. They don't
like it because they say that imputed righteousness takes away
from actual righteousness, and so they object and argue. But our righteousness, our own,
is as filthy rags in the sight of God. Isaiah 64 and verse 6
is very clear. Now the free justification of
a sinner excludes all boasting. It is in such a way that no one
can brag, no one can boast, no one can glory and say, look what
I did to save my soul. It excludes boasting. Verse 27,
it is excluded by the law of faith and by the death of our
Lord and Savior. So that in the justification
of sinners, The law is magnified and is made honorable, Isaiah
42 and verse 21. It is done in such a way that
the law is made honorable and magnified. Now in closing, One
commentator said, quote, Paul is well aware of the possibility
of an antinomian inference from the doctrine of grace, unquote,
and he ever meets it head on and reduces all such charges
to an absurdity protecting the free grace of God in Jesus Christ,
that there is neither antinomian in this, and that the grace of
God stands in all of its wonder. No, faith does not make void
the law, but establishes it in the way that Paul means in this
place. Because the law has been fulfilled
in Christ. He's the end of the law for righteousness,
Romans 10 and verse 4. to every one that believeth. Our Lord gave the law all it
required. He gave it obedience and He endured
its curse in our stead and behalf. And therefore, righteousness
is imputed to those who believe on the Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. Do we make void the law by faith? God forbid, yea, we establish
it.