Paul is dealing with a question
of justification and its manner, mode, necessity, and such like. Verse 1, Romans 3, What advantage
then hath the Jew? What profit is there of circumcision? Much every way, chiefly because
that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the
faith of God of none effect? God forbid, yea, let God be true,
but every man a liar, as it is written that thou mightest be
justified in thy sayings mightest overcome when thou art judged. But if our unrighteousness commend
the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous
who taketh vengeance? I speak as a man. God forbid,
for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of
God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why am
I yet also judged, or charged, or accused of being a sinner? And not, rather, as we be slanderously
reported, and as some affirm that we say, let us do evil that
good may come, whose damnation is just." Now, brothers and sisters,
there are some things in here that need our careful attention. We'll try to do that this morning. It is instantly obvious from
verse 1 of the text that we have read that it refers or has reference
to something that has already been said or that has gone before. something that Paul has written
and written in regard and relationship unto the Jew. Because the question
in verse 1 cannot simply appear out of thin air or fall down
out of the sky without a reason. Then too, the division of the
chapter does not mean that an altogether new subject has been
taken up in the third chapter. We have referred to Paul in time
past as the master anticipator, that he not only could foresee
objections that could be raised against the doctrine that he
was teaching, but he also knew the nature of those objections,
the very form in which they would take and come forth. As, for
example, in Romans 9, And verse 19, he says, you will then say
unto me, from what I have written, from what I have said, this is
what you will say, object to, or reply. Now granted, it is
also quite possible that these objections had actually been
raised against Paul and against his doctrine from those that
heard him preach. But in the end, it makes no difference
whether they are actual objections raised by the Jews, or whether
they are from Paul's logical movement of his thought. He both
makes the objection and then he answers it, and answers it
in an irrefutable way. Now, the more important question
is, what had Paul said that might give rise to this objection in
verse 1? What advantage is there to the
Jew, and what profit is there in circumcision? Well, the answer
to the question, we need to turn back to the previous chapters,
and there consider two things. Number one, the more remote part
of the epistle, or of the passage, outlining how it is that the
Jews are justified and that by and through Jesus Christ. That
the Jews who had been guilty of being hearers only and not
doers of the Word of God, they trusted in this for justification. Back in chapter 2 and verse 13. And then in verse 17 through
24 of that same second chapter of Romans, Paul said, you, call
yourself Jew, You rested in the law. You are instructed out of
the things that are in the law. You consider yourself to be capable,
reliable guides of others into the truth of God. And at the
same time, Paul says, you transgress the law. They claim to be justified. And so flagrant was their hypocrisy
and conceit that it gave an occasion among the Gentiles for the holy
name of God to be blasphemed, which is probably a reference
to Isaiah chapter 52 and verse 5. Remember what the prophet
told David in 2 Samuel chapter 12 and verse 14, "...by this
deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to
blaspheme against our God. Another version renders it this
way. You have made the enemies of
the Lord to show contempt the behavior of David. And Paul says
that to the Jews. Here you are clinging to the
law, and yet you have caused the name of God to be blasphemed
among the Gentiles by your ill behavior. But secondly, We notice
that the objection raised in chapter 3 and verse 1 stem from
the apostles' nearer context, our latest words, back in chapter
2, 25 through verse 29, where there, in the words of Robert
Haldane, he pursues the Jew into his last retreat and strips him
of his last refuge their trust in circumcision, and declares
that the true circumcision is that of the heart and not of
the flesh, and that the Gentiles could be saved without the rite
of circumcision, and that righteousness in the Gentiles be counted as
circumcision, and that a true Jew was not won outwardly, but
was won inwardly, and that the Jews' transgression of the law
actually made its circumcision to become uncircumcision. Hence, from those words, the
objection in chapter 3 and verse 1. If such be the case, Paul,
as you have said, if our uncircumcision become worthless and suchlike,
then the question is, what advantage is there in being a Jew, and
what profit is there in having the Abrahamic circumcision? Now these questions, or if you
prefer, objections, for they no doubt are both, are raised
and are made. They are not specious, but they
are real objections and questions and are made in reference to
the backdrop of those verses back in the end of chapter 2,
that God chose their father Abraham. He gave him to be the head of
their race. He gave him a mighty seed in
the world. And this circumcision that Abraham
received was by a divine ordinance. It was not the invention of man. How will Paul then answer? What advantage has the Jew? What
profit is there in circumcision? Well, just this in the second
verse, that what is declared in the end of chapter 2 does
not negate the fact that the Jews were a people much privileged
above the Gentiles and the other nation. And so he answers What
had they advantage? What profit is there? Yes, he
said, much every way. And he names that which he considers
to be the greatest advantage. The oracles of God had been committed
unto them. They were entrusted with the
Word of God. They had the prophets written
down. They had the prophets on paper. chiefly, firstly, primarily,
he says, they had the divine revelation. We use the word oracle
here, and the word oracle refers to an utterance of God. For the word oracle is the word
glasion and appears four times in the New Testament. If you
keep track, here they are. Acts 7 and verse 38. Here in
Romans 3 and verse 2, Hebrews 5 and verse 12 speaks of the
first oracles of God, and 1 Peter chapter 4 and verse 11. Now, to have the written communication
of God is indeed a high privilege. Consider, for example, the Psalmist,
147 verse 19 and 20. He has revealed His Word unto
Jacob, His house and decrees to Israel. He has done this for
no other nation. They do not know His laws." By
the way, though Paul considers the inspired Word, the chief
privilege heaped upon the Jewish nation, over in Romans chapter
9, Verse 4 and 5, Paul gives a much fuller list of the Israelites'
privileges and blessings. The adoption, he says, the glory,
the covenant, the giving of the law, the service, the promises,
the fathers, and Christ after the flesh came out of the people
of Israel. And so their privileges were
great. Their privileges were many, but
Paul must tell them to their sorrow that it cannot and did
not and will not justify them. Now, let's illustrate. By two
persons, much raised in the same time and age and such like, one
of the two persons never went to church, never was in the church,
attended where the Word of God was preached, never learned any
creeds, never memorized any Scripture, and the other person was raised
up in church, was there all the time, heard the preaching, read
from the Word, memorized the creeds and such like. Now who
has the advantage in these two people? The one raised under
the sound of the gospel. But this does not guarantee that
that second one will be saved by the grace of God. So in Romans
3 and verse 2, unto them were committed the oracles of God. Then look at verse 3. That raises
another question. They had the Word of God. They
had the divinely inspired written revelation of God. But the third
verse asks a pertinent question What of some are of those who
did not believe? They had the Word of God, but
what if some did not believe? And of course, many of them did
not believe the oracles of God. So the question is this, will
their unbelief invalidate the truth of God or the faithfulness
of God? For God made promise to Israel.
He made a covenant with Abraham and with their fathers. Or, as
John Brown expressed it, peculiar promises were made by God to
the Jews as a nation. If therefore many Jews perish
in their unbelief, even having the oracles of God, what is become
then of this advantage or profit that Paul says that they have.
What has become of the promise of the covenant of God and all
of that. Paul also deals with this question
again in Romans chapter 9. And there he gives it a much
fuller answer than he does here in the third chapter. Chapter 9, verse 6 of Romans. Does this mean that God's Word
Has failed? Has it taken none effect? Has the Word of God come to nothing
since some or many of the children of Abraham are perishing? True Israelites after the flesh
are perishing. Does this mean that the Word
of God has failed? Paul answers, no. Upon a correct
principle, Not all Israel is of Israel. And in Romans 9, 7-13,
Paul using there almost exclusively the Old Testament Scripture,
gives two examples from the history of Father Abraham, two examples
of God rejecting some of Abraham's direct descendants. One from
the issue of His very own body, and another in His grandchildren,
Jacob and Esau. But back to Romans 3 and verse
4, in answer to the question, shall the unbelief of Israel
mean that God is unfaithful to His Word? Child, the fact that
many of them do not believe, does that mean that God's Word
has failed and has fallen, as it were, to the ground? Paul's
answer is that patent one that he so often gives. And in order
to emphasize it, he says, God forbid, and then notice what
he said, let God be true in every man a liar, even If all men are
liars, and if everything that they say were to be a lie, if
there is no truth in them, yet God's Word is true, for it is
impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6 and verse 18. His Word is true,
and it cannot and it will not fail. In other words, whosoever
does not believe God's Word remains and abides as the truth. Now
I want you to look at the second half of verse 4. Here it gets
a little cloudy sometimes. It is a quotation from that great
penitential prayer of repentant David in Psalm 51 and verse 4. And we wonder how it fits Paul's
use and occasion in this place. Paul says, as it is written that
you might be justified, that you might be right in thy sayings,
and might be and overcome and prevail when judged. At first sight, it does not appear
at all that David meant the same use of those words that Paul
does here as he applies them in Romans 3. David had confessed
that all sin is against God, and he had further said that
God is just in punishing it. That God would be just whatever
sentence He pronounces upon David because of his sin. For the sentence
of God against David's sin reads 2 Samuel chapter 12, verse 10
through 14, of all the things that God said would come upon
David. But it is clear David is saying
in Psalm 51 and verse 4, whatever be God's sentence against sin,
whatever you pronounce, you are just and righteous. Whatever
sentence you send for, you are righteous. He has no ground upon
which to complain. David does not. And he acknowledges
that in his prayer. It is just with God to punish
sin. It is just with God to impose
the sentences against it that He pleases and that sin deserves. How does this fit Paul's context
here in Romans chapter 3? How does he use it? against the
unbelief of the Jews in his day. See if we can figure that out.
Just as Robert Haldane suggests, that God's condemnation of sin
is always just. And Haldane wrote this, quote,
this is precisely what the apostle proposed to conclude against
the Jews, unquote. Exactly what David said. Whatever sentence you pass is
just. John Murray thought much the
same, that Paul is quoting the passage from David in the 51st
Psalm, quote, for the purpose of vindicating the justice of
God's condemnatory judgments, unquote. In other words, sin
is the occasion of the display, the manifestation, of the justice
of God. Because of sin there is made
a great display of the justice of our Heavenly Father. It seems
clear from what Paul is here in Romans 3 that this is Paul's
meaning and that it is his reasoning. In fact, the abounding of sin
allows for a greater abounding of grace. Remember what he said
in chapter 5 and verse 20? Where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound. The law entered that sin or the
offense might abound, but where sin abounded, grace did much
more abound. The entrance of sin gave an occasion
for the display of some of the choice attributes of God. Man sinned and man fell. And
the manifestation of choice attributes was therefore set forth. Grace,
mercy, long-suffering, sovereignty. But on the other side, also the
wrath of God. Now these had been mostly confined
to the heavenly host, if not for the entrance of sin into
the human family and the fall of the race. So coming then to
verse 5, Paul checks another false assumption that some might
draw against the doctrine that Paul is advancing. It is a false
conclusion that some uninformed might come out and attack to
what they falsely believe that Paul is teaching. What they falsely
believe that Paul is teaching. The essence of the objection
in verse 5 is, since the sin of man is the occasion for the
glory of his grace and results in God being glorified, and if
sin allows a display of the righteousness of God, how then shall he punish? Upon what basis shall he punish
those whose unrighteousness has been the occasion of the manifestation
of God's righteousness. See this in verse 5. Two things. If our unrighteousness commends
the righteousness of God, then Paul asks, what shall we say? Have we painted ourselves into
a corner that we cannot get out of? What must be the conclusion
that is to be drawn? How shall we answer it? What
shall we say? What is our reply? Have they
exposed a great fault in Paul's doctrine? Have they caught him
in that which is irreconcilable, saying, if our righteousness
commend God's righteousness, does it not then follow that
God is unrighteous to take vengeance upon sin, since it has been the
occasion of the manifestation of His glory. In other words,
the question is, will God punish that which glorifies Him? Will He take vengeance upon sinners
whose unrighteousness has allowed Him to be glorified? Note that Paul says here in the
end, I speak as a man. When I raise this question, I
speak as a man. I speak as men speak. as they so often reason, and
they so often conclude. I'm using the words of men. I'm reasoning as men often reason. Or as John Gill wrote, the apostle
was not speaking of his own sentiment, not his own view of the matter,
but as Gill wrote, and I quote, he personated another man and
spoke in the language of an adversary He knew well the arguments that
were both made and that could be made against his doctrine
of divine sovereignty. And he met them head on. He did
not dodge them at all. His patent answer here and other
places is, God forbid. This is not a proper conclusion. God forbid. And here in Romans
3 and 5, The enemies of the gospel were using false logic. They said if one thing is true,
another must be true. But they were using false logic. That sin is an occasion of manifesting
the righteousness of God, that then it ought not to be punished. Now pardon, on my part, a digression. But there is a similar argument
which Paul repels again in Romans 9 and verse 19. This time the
argument is made against the sovereignty of God in election
and reprobation. And in Romans 9, 19, Paul says,
You will then say unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will. This is an objection that might
be brought against the absolute sovereignty of God. The objection
is made against what He has said in verse 15 through verse 18
of Romans 9, and that was that God had told Moses in Exodus
33 and 19, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. And Paul quoted that In Romans
9.15, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will
have compassion upon whom I will have compassion. Then in Romans
9.16, Paul draws a proper conclusion. He says it is not a matter of
man's will or of man's effort, but it is a matter of God's mercy. Then in verse 17, Paul brings
in the Word of God that was spoken to Pharaoh in Exodus 9 and verse
16, that God said to him, for this cause have I raised thee
up that my power might be displayed in you and that my name might
be glorified throughout all of the earth. He had his throne
by the ordination of God and Scripture is clear. God hardened
his heart that he resisted the words of Moses, Exodus 4 and
verse 21. Now again in Romans 9, 18, Paul
draws a proper conclusion, and it is this, Therefore has he
mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he harden. This time
the objector argues, if the sovereign will of God stands immutable. If it is not resistible, if it is unconditionally
fixed, God's sovereign will. How then does God punish any
for doing what God had decreed them to do? This gives the Arminian
fit, and he runs around in circle. John Murray phrased the question,
How can God blame us when we are the victims of His irresistible
decree? That's the essence of the argument
there. Who has resisted His will? He does as He pleases. Who can
resist His will? Then the question comes up in
Romans 9 that are very interesting. The other is in Romans 9.14.
Is there unrighteousness with God? Paul had just declared election
and reprobation as seen in the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah. One loved it and one hated it. And we should notice how Paul
answers the objection, never saying to them, well, you know,
you misunderstood me. What I really meant to say was
this or that. He lets the doctrine stand by
the way that he answers the objections. He stands by the doctrine that
he has proclaimed. Even citing Scripture in support
of what he had said. So that Romans 9 is one of the
hardest chapters for the Arminian to digest and to swallow. But
let's go back to Romans 3 and verse 5. And we last considered
the question, if man's sin commends the righteousness of God, is
it then an unrighteous thing with God to punish those whose
unrighteousness has allowed a manifestation of His own righteousness? And
in verse 6, His answer is patent, God for Then Paul answers the objection,
showing the absolute folly of it, that should God refrain from
vengeance because His righteousness is manifested by the sin of men,
then what effect would that have? The effect would then be that
God would lose His character as a judge of all of the earth. which He is, Genesis 18 and verse
25, Acts 17 and 31. He has appointed a day in which
He will judge the world in righteousness by that man, Christ Jesus, by
whom He has given assurance in that He hath raised Him again
from the dead. But how should He judge the world? If it is an unjust thing to punish
sin, whereby His righteousness is made manifest? Let's return
again for a moment to the case of Pharaoh, who by his resistance,
God's power was manifest, and by his destruction, God's power
as well as God's name is declared throughout the world. Wherever
the word of the Lord is preached, it is declared. God got much
glory from the sin the rebellion of Pharaoh. But this did not
exempt him from the vengeance or the judgment of God. Certain
it is that God makes the wrath of man to praise Him. Psalm 76
and verse 10 is an amazing scripture or statement. He maketh the wrath
of man to praise Him. The remainder of wrath He binds
our trusses in. He hath made all things for himself,
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Proverbs 16 and
verse 4. A good example of that is Judas
who betrayed Christ and those also who crucified him in that
God used sinners to do those things and yet still held them
accountable and punished them. But now, looking at v. 7 and v. 8 of our text in Romans
3, I agree with those who think that not only does Paul still
here have in his mind the false objection in v. 5, but he brings forth other
absurdities of those objections if those objections be allowed
to stand. If those objections are real
and they stand, then we see some absurdity. In verse 7, Paul makes
an example of himself. Look at it carefully. We have
to understand this verse. He says, using the terms, my
lie, and then I also. My and I. And in one view of
verse 7, it goes like this, and has Paul turning and using their
argument in regard to his teaching upon their own head. Here he
turns it back upon their very own head in his very own case. Like this, if Paul is teaching
a lie, and if Paul's lie allows them to set forth the truth,
why are they calling him then a sinner? Why is he still reckoned
as a sinner? If his lies, if his false doctrine,
as his opponents called his teaching, caused the truth of God to be
set in a proper light and abound, why then would they judge him
as a sinner? If God cannot judge those by
whom His righteousness is manifested, By their unrighteousness, the
same must hold true of Paul, that if he is a liar, and that
causes God's truth to come into focus, how then shall he be counted
as a sinner? And using their own false conclusion,
they should believe that the more Paul lied, the more he preached
what they deemed a lie, the more the truth of God did abound under
his glory. Or else, give up their false
views, deduce from what they thought Paul's gospel would lead
to. And coming to verse 8, which
crowns, I think, the paragraph that we have read this morning,
and sheds much light upon this section that we have used for
our text. Paul shows them where their false
conclusions would ultimately lead which they charged against
him and against his teaching, as the parenthesis shows they
did. They accused Paul of teaching
this, let us do evil that good may come. Let us sin that grace
may abound. That's not what Paul said, but
that's what they deduced falsely from what the apostle was teaching. They accused Paul of teaching,
let's go ahead and sin, let's do evil that good may come. Now, he did not teach such, but
in their ignorance, this is what they falsely concluded. For example,
in Romans 6 and verse 1, what shall we say then? Shall we continue
in sin that grace may abound? They took that from Paul's doctrine
of justification gratuitously without the law and without works. And so they said, well, look,
if that doctrine is so, let us sin then that grace may abound. And let us sin because we are
not under the law, but under grace. It's repeated again in
Romans 6 and verse 15. What then? Shall we sin because
we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Let's make a practical point
out of all of this. One can hardly preach at all
the doctrine of the free grace of God without being called a
heretic, a libertine, and blasphemer. And those types of objections
are still raised today. We have heard people say, if
some are elect and ordained to be saved, What then is the use
of preaching the gospel or assembling? Their reasoning is they don't
need to attend church or to hear preaching. What is the use of
our soul winning if already they are elect? Others reason. If God is sovereign and all things
are fixed, why pray for ourselves? Why pray for others or for lost
souls? Why read the Bible if God is
sovereign and things are fixed. Others argue if salvation is
all of grace without keeping the law and without any good
works or merit on our part, then it will tend to those who believe
it to live in licentiousness. We must keep a chain upon these
people. We can't turn them loose just
by the grace of God alone. But two points are to be made.
A. The same grace that saves us
is the same grace that teaches us to live righteously, godly,
and soberly in this present world. Titus chapter 2 and verse 12. The same grace that saves our
soul works effectively to teach us to live unto God in this world. And then B. Many people who believe
in the law and good works for salvation themselves live a licentious
life. There's a lot of immorality,
even among those who say, we must keep the law and we must
keep working to stay safe. There's a lot of immorality among
them as well. So some say, Christianity is
just full of hypocrites. Well, join the crowd. True it
is that the behavior of some who claim to be Christian have
caused the Word of the Lord, the Church, the Gospel to be
blasphemed even in our day. But there are still others who
take the doctrine of eternal security. Saved by grace, saved
forever, they say, this breeds sinful living. We say only to
those who draw the wrong conclusion For with preservation comes perseverance. God works in those to will and
to do. Note what Paul concludes of such
a perversion of his teaching. Verse 8, whose damnation is just. Even their judgment is just. Now this is the last powerful
word from Paul. Their damnation is just. One wrote, Their sin was that
they made an assault upon the justice or the rectitude of Almighty
God." This false conclusion that they drew. Now, two great truths
are set forth here and other places in Romans. Number one,
God is just in the condemnation of unbelieving Jews. God is just, even though they
are Abraham's descendants, and even though they had the oracles
of God, and even though they had the mark of circumcision,
and they had the high privileges and were of the covenant nation.
God is just in the condemnation of unbelieving Jews. On the second
hand, God is just in the justification of sinners. in sinners like the
Gentiles who had been gross idolaters all of their days and had vowed
to every imaginable idol. They had been great sinners.
Filthy lives they had lived. But He is both just and the justifier
of them that believe in Christ Jesus. Romans 3 and verse 26. Just to save wicked sinners.
just to save them without keeping the law or without receiving
anything from their hand, because Christ has borne their sins. He is just in saving sinners
and the worst of them. All we can say with this text
is, how deadly are wrong conclusions. When one draws a wrong conclusion
from the Word of the Lord, how deadly. when one reads a passage
or a doctrine and makes a false conclusion from that, how deadly
and misleading are those false deductions from the Word of the
Lord. And Paul sets them in their place
in this passage of the Scripture. He gives them their due answer.
He answers them justly. You're wrong, and here's why.
Thank God for this epistle that the Lord inspired Paul to write
for our admonition. Thank you, and let's stand, please,
and have a word of prayer.