Romans 3:7
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:43 am
3 What advantage, then, does the Jew have, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 There are all kinds of advantages! First of all, the Jews[a] have been entrusted with the utterances of God. 3 What if some of the Jews were unfaithful? Their unfaithfulness cannot cancel God’s faithfulness, can it? 4 Of course not! God is true, even if everyone else is a liar. As it is written,
“You are right when you speak,[c]
and win your case when you go into court.”[d]
5 But if our unrighteousness serves to confirm God’s righteousness, what can we say? God is not unrighteous when he vents his wrath on us, is he? (I am talking in human terms.) 6 Of course not! Otherwise, how could God judge the world? 7 For[e] if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness glorifies him even more, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 Or can we say—as some people slander us by claiming that we say—“Let’s do evil that good may result”? They deserve to be condemned!
I hope you guys can help me with this one.
I wanted to show my Pastor some of the allegations against Christianity and in this case, against Apostle Paul, in an effort to show him what I do on discussion boards.
So, I asked him to interpret Romans 3:7.
Believe it or not, he said Paul inadvertently lied, but would receive grace for his lie because everyone is a sinner.
My best answer is this:
Romans 3 in context:
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."[a]
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
Keep in mind that Paul is carrying on an argument with an imaginary objector. This is how the conversation plays out.
Objector: You say that there is no difference between Gentile and Jew and they are in exactly the same position.
Paul: By no means.
Objector: What is the difference?
Paul: For one thing, the Jews possess what the Gentiles never directly possessed, the commandments of God.
Objector: Yes. But what if some Jews disobeyed these commandments and were unfaithful to God and came under His condemnation? You say that God gave the Jews a special position and a special promise. Now you say that at least some of them are under the condemnation of god. Does that mean that God has broken His promise and shown Himself to be unjust and unreliable?
Paul: Far from it. It does show that there is no favoritism with God and that God punishes sin wherever He finds it. The fact that He condemns the unfaithful Jews is the best possible proof of His absolute justice. He might have been expected to overlook the sins of this special people, but He does not.
Objector: OK, but what you have done is to succeed in showing that my disobedience has given God an opportunity to demonstrate His righteousness. In other words, my unfaithfulness has given God a great opportunity to demonstrate His faithfulness. My sin is, therefore, an excellent thing. It has given God a chance to show how good He is. I may have done evil, but good has come of it. You surely can't condemn someone for giving God a chance to show His justice.
Paul: An argument like that is beneath contempt. You have only to state it to see how intolerable it really is.
Imaginary conversation complied by William Barclay.
There is a word for what Paul is doing here, but it escapes me now.
I would really appreciate your comments.
Thanks.
“You are right when you speak,[c]
and win your case when you go into court.”[d]
5 But if our unrighteousness serves to confirm God’s righteousness, what can we say? God is not unrighteous when he vents his wrath on us, is he? (I am talking in human terms.) 6 Of course not! Otherwise, how could God judge the world? 7 For[e] if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness glorifies him even more, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 Or can we say—as some people slander us by claiming that we say—“Let’s do evil that good may result”? They deserve to be condemned!
I hope you guys can help me with this one.
I wanted to show my Pastor some of the allegations against Christianity and in this case, against Apostle Paul, in an effort to show him what I do on discussion boards.
So, I asked him to interpret Romans 3:7.
Believe it or not, he said Paul inadvertently lied, but would receive grace for his lie because everyone is a sinner.
My best answer is this:
Romans 3 in context:
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."[a]
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
Keep in mind that Paul is carrying on an argument with an imaginary objector. This is how the conversation plays out.
Objector: You say that there is no difference between Gentile and Jew and they are in exactly the same position.
Paul: By no means.
Objector: What is the difference?
Paul: For one thing, the Jews possess what the Gentiles never directly possessed, the commandments of God.
Objector: Yes. But what if some Jews disobeyed these commandments and were unfaithful to God and came under His condemnation? You say that God gave the Jews a special position and a special promise. Now you say that at least some of them are under the condemnation of god. Does that mean that God has broken His promise and shown Himself to be unjust and unreliable?
Paul: Far from it. It does show that there is no favoritism with God and that God punishes sin wherever He finds it. The fact that He condemns the unfaithful Jews is the best possible proof of His absolute justice. He might have been expected to overlook the sins of this special people, but He does not.
Objector: OK, but what you have done is to succeed in showing that my disobedience has given God an opportunity to demonstrate His righteousness. In other words, my unfaithfulness has given God a great opportunity to demonstrate His faithfulness. My sin is, therefore, an excellent thing. It has given God a chance to show how good He is. I may have done evil, but good has come of it. You surely can't condemn someone for giving God a chance to show His justice.
Paul: An argument like that is beneath contempt. You have only to state it to see how intolerable it really is.
Imaginary conversation complied by William Barclay.
There is a word for what Paul is doing here, but it escapes me now.
I would really appreciate your comments.
Thanks.