#68. Romans 3:4-5 – Unrighteousness Commends Righteousness

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

Now let God be true, yet every man a liar, even as it is written: “That so Thou shouldst be justified in Thy sayings, And shalt be conquering even when Thou art being judged.” Now if our injustice is commending God’s righteousness, what shall we declare? Not that God Who is bringing on indignation is unjust! (As a man I am saying it.)

There is only one further objection from the Jew. It does not concern “faith,” but exposes the faithlessness and misunderstanding of the one objecting (3:5-8.)

First, the objector correctly realizes that the injustice of man commends the righteousness of God. If you recall, back in Romans 1:16-18, there are three stated reasons for the evangel’s necessity:

1)    Crafts unashamed faith (1:16)

2)    Displays the righteousness of God (1:17)

3)    Contextualizes man’s falsehoods (1:18-3:5)

In presenting this question here, Paul has looped around, in long-winded fashion, revealing the interconnected nature of the three. True righteousness is faithful through the experience of lies from within and without. Without the lies, this faith could never be demonstrated. And indeed, it was the righteousness of God (out of faith, into faith) which brought about this whole discussion. How is God righteous if He has complete authority over our unjust deeds (Rom. 1:22, 24, 26, 28,) and actively ensures that we do them?

To appreciate the answer to this question, let us briefly consider “injustice.” The unrighteousness of man is said to be the object of God’s indignation (1:18,) and judgment (2:5.) If either indignation were inflicted without judgment, or judgment passed without indignation, then God could not be said to be righteous, or to have conveyed both His feelings about unrighteousness, nor would He show an ability to handle unrighteousness. He would fail at showing us what He thinks and how He faces adversity.

God does not fail.

The indignation and judgment on injustice is presented first, so that the human cannot discount the evangel as presented in Romans 3:21-26. God is both establishing and removing injustice among us. The reality is that there is no justification apart from God’s righteousness. This supplies the necessity for our injustice, for we cannot fundamentally appreciate justification without a true, objective foundation.

This foundation is God’s righteousness. As I have discussed ad nauseum, God must portray the opposite of His righteousness, that we may relationally learn of it. Thus, with the necessity for man’s injustice, suited for God’s purpose, two points become evident. First, it would be wholly unjust for a loving God to eternally damn those whom He crafted into injustice, and does not demonstrate a love toward them in any way. Not only does this discount the oracles of God, which explicitly state that He is Love, but it also discounts the judgment of God, which is said to accord with Paul’s evangel.

Seriously, this first point is crucial. The term “eternal” is mistranslated, and it is this preference for the mistranslated text that has led almost every Christian church to pervert God’s righteousness into penalty alone, as if God is watching from the sidelines and judges you at the great white throne, as if you just performed a triple somersault at the Olympic Games. The difference, of course, is that this perverted god would make you this way, judge you this way, and then abandon you this way – meaning his ends would not justify the means. If the true God judges without a view to impart the evangel to the unjust, then He sacrifices the very evangel which displays His righteousness – thus forfeiting His right to rightly judge.

This leads to the second point: that God shows that there is no justification for anyone apart from His righteousness. The Jew has not been justified on account of the law – and is thus in need of judgment. The gentile, too, has not been justified for lacking the law – and is thus in need of judgment. Sin invades both parties (Rom. 3:10, 23.)

There is a direct cause/effect between our injustice and God’s righteousness. Our faithlessness, our injustice, does not only contrast, but actually commends the faithfulness and righteousness of God. The term commend is sunistEmi, or “TOGETHER-STAND.” The injustice must stand together with the righteousness of God. It is not that the two are of equal quality, but that both are necessary so that the righteousness of God is demonstrated.

The righteousness of God may point toward His evangel, but the righteousness yet concerns His dealings with the sinner – not the saved. “Salvation” has not yet entered the conversation. The righteous Deity must follow through on the penalty of sin: death. All sin must be taken into account, while all blessing must be taken into account. Both are righteous dealings – to alter either is to disbelieve the righteousness of God.

The only way to harmonize these righteous dealings is by considering the faith of God under both circumstances. On its surface, we have an insoluble dilemma; the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. There is thus much benefit for them. Yet every Jew, and all mankind, are sinners who lie, falling short on the facts every time. So He must grant Israel their blessings, since He is true and does not lie, like man. Yet He must also perform right judgment. If He is to be a just and fair Judge (3:8,) then He cannot exempt Israel in order to grant them their blessing anyway. If He did do this, then He may be “a” judge, but not the Just Judge.

All of this is to say that Paul is continually preparing us for the evangel. When we consider the evangel of Romans 3:21-32, then, we will finally enjoy that message of justification, in which the Bridge between His righteousness in judgment and faith is unfolded.

What Shall We Declare?

It is evident, in the meantime, that Paul’s answers from verses 1-4 are indeed accurate and true – with David’s scenario from the Old Testament as a beautiful example, to boot. God is righteous, in both judgments and promises, and can correct the individual without revoking the promises. He has further elaborated that human unrighteousness does not foil God’s plans, but are actually necessary steps in achieving His goals with the race as a whole! Though Paul has not explained what the steps are, and only briefly intimated how these steps are accomplished (such is more the burden of the evangel,) he has answered to the objections sufficiently enough to press forward.

What shall we declare to all this? Is the Subjector Who places us in injustice now unjust for establishing the conditions for His indignation to be revealed?

Haters would say, “Yes!” (It’s okay; we are all haters – Rom. 3:10.) The objector here is proposing his conclusion to Paul’s statement. Let’s take it slow. The objector says something like, “Paul, you are essentially saying that God causes our injustice – the injustice that He Himself also says that He hates. If this is the case, then God is responsible for the injustice which men does! Would this not make God the cause of injustice, and therefore mean that He is unjust?”

This is, arguably, the strongest objection which is proposed by the religious zealot today, when confronted with the plethora of verses concerning God’s absolute authority over any object, matter and outcome. The whole idea from the human, in points “a” and “b” on the diagram to the left, is that mankind must also contribute “good” for God’s purposes to be fulfilled. With this, judgments are leveled against God.

First and foremost, the objector is going to lose such an argument. There is no contest. The objection itself has already failed to retain Paul’s supportive reasoning in 3:4. The passage read that God “would be justified in His sayings when He is being judged” (cf. Septuagint – LXX – rendering.) Man is evidently zealous over their faithfulness. Good for them! Yet God is evidently zealous over His faithfulness, and anyone who has ever had a strained relationship with another person – via family, friends, marriage, or other – can attest that there is no contest. If faith were stocks, man is $38 trillion in debt, while God has a monopoly on faith’s product.

As we previously discussed, the objector is arguing on an entirely faulty premise – one which forcefully must take the opposite stance to Paul. By arguing at all, the objector is self-condemned, since he is a part of the racial condemnation (Rom. 1:28-2:3.) There is no escape from condemnation if man’s works are to be treated as supportive reasoning.

God, in the meantime, is Paul’s Rock. God is Judge – this is whether man likes it or not. A judge who judges properly is a just judge! Therefore, God is just. The fact that He does punish sin does not invalidate the prior argument.

Take the scenario with David. When David sinned, he did not avert judgment by focusing his attention on the righteousness of God. David needed to recognize both evil and good – his “moral” evil needed to be pitted against God’s right judgment. This occurred, that when he rejoiced, it was not because God had withheld the judgment, but rather that He had enforced it, and maintained His promised blessings. It was only in this manner that David could learn of God’s character.

Worse still, the objector is arguing from the negative. He has failed to grasp what judgment is. He assumes it to be a measuring stick, when it is a corrective measure. The judgments inflicted upon David were a means to an end – that is, they were not a permanent injunction, but temporary (the sword would remain “for the eon,” not “forever.”)

If the objector would acknowledge this, then he would cease discounting the judgment of God. When speaking of God “being unjust,” Paul specifically says, “As a man am I saying it.” This is to show how abhorrent the thought of God being unjust truly is to him. Yet this perspective – that of a man, a limited, unknowing person, lowest ‘subjector’ on the totem pole of the universe – is the exact perspective which the objector staunchly prides himself in assuming, on a premise which must mischaracterize God.

- GerudoKing