#69. Romans 3:5-8 – Objection #3 and a Rebuttal

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

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 am I saying it.) May it not be coming to that! Else how shall God be judging the world?

May it Not be Coming to That #2!

When speaking of the phrase “May it not be coming to that,” our famed brother Ace Theo has said (paraphrasing,) “Paul’s answer to many objections from the tribe of doubt begins with this statement. I believe that when Paul says this, what he is really saying is, ‘Bite me!’”

Paul admits the question – “Is God, Who is bringing on indignation, unjust?” – only to emphatically loathe its fake conclusion. It does not matter to Paul whether the faith of God or the justice of God is in doubt; he will always staunchly oppose this “tribe of doubt,” who stand with such supposed authority on matters of God.

Paul’s counterargument for denying the objector’s conclusion follows: “How shall God be judging the world?” Notice, first, that Paul directs the conversation back to God. He denies any premise which invokes human effort (which feels a bit necessary, for a conversation like this.) By stressing these characteristics of God in light of human doubt, Paul both practically demonstrates his point, while actually explaining his point. It is through the doubts that one can be humbled and learn to actively recognize God as God (Rom. 1:21.) This belief in God (not merely of His existence, which should be apparent to any scientific scholar, but of His word) begins a reversal of the problems brought about in 1:18-32. We must be shown the evangel for a complete reversal of the issues, but this preparatory information is a major help for us in preparing for righteousness.

Paul does not treat evil – evil of any kind – as something beyond God’s control, or ability. This is a topic best suited for Romans 9-11, and when the time is right, God will discuss them. But the objector needs an immediate response to his query, or he will feel that he “wins” the argument. Thus Paul responds – if God is to bring the world into injustice, for a specific purpose and a set amount of time, then He cannot leave the world in injustice. He must set right what once went wrong (like Sam Beckett, but on a macrocosmic scale.) Without resolving the issues presented throughout mankind’s history, man would be left with insoluble trauma.

This is why Paul gives such a brief response. In a “credibility” sense, he can point at almost any passage concerning judgment in the Old Testament. In fact, one of the first uses of the term “judgment” appears in Gen. 18:25, where Abraham asks God, “The Judge of the entire earth, would He not execute right judgment?” The fact of God judging the earth justly should be obvious to a Jewish objector. To ignore these statements would lack integrity (hence why the objector does not immediately pursue this line of reasoning.)

In an “emotional” sense, Paul may ask, “Do you hear yourselves?” Truly, the argument is that any purpose for sin means it cannot be fixed?? And for what? To try and make God a debtor to man. The unfaithfulness of the Jew commends God’s faithfulness. Therefore, to the Jew, his unfaithfulness is owed righteousness?

Please. Get over yourselves!

In a “logical” sense, Paul’s response does not immediately tackle the underlying rebuttal from the Jew, who would ask, “Okay, then, should we persist in injustice so that His righteousness may be commended all the more?” Paul saves this objection for 6:1-14. In the meantime, the objector cannot rationally follow the objection through, for, to continue persisting would force him to stand in open rebellion to a Just Judge. If God shouldn’t judge the world, then the objector finds himself charged with the very thing he charged Paul with: disrespecting a just God.

I would not be surprised if Paul’s response were to catch the objector off guard. The Jew seeks the judgment of the gentile, and there are many passages which attest to this. For Paul to contextualize the judgment in light of God’s authority over injustice shifts the judgment to one which demands resolution for the judged, beyond the penalty enforced. If God merely inflicts penalty without justice for both the injurer and the injured (all play some part in both roles,) then He may be a Judge, but not a just Judge. He would have put a brief stop to injustice, but He would not be showing that He overcomes injustice, and can cause the unjust to overcome sin. He would be leaving both the capacity for injustice and the damage caused by injustice intact.

This is vengeance, yes, and retribution is indeed a part of God’s judgment – but this is not all to the judgment (and don’t tell me otherwise, Mr. I-Didn’t-Read-the-Book-Before-Speaking.) If this were all, then judgment would have to continue eternally. God would not be able to make “all things new,” but have to repeat the scene at Judgment Day indefinitely.

Thus, we cannot merely be penalized; we must learn and be set right. This is the difference between treating judgment as “the end,” or as “a means to an end.” Injustice itself must be shown to be condemned. The concept must be severed from the sinner, then, and taken care of on its own terms, that the sinner become freed from it (3:24-25.)

The Effect of the Objector’s Objection

The objector, for all his supposed wisdom, fails to grasp what he is admitting; that, for all the faults of the entire race, a platform on which we have zero right to judge, that purpose for the injustice brings God into our debt. Since our poor deeds are His foil, we do not deserve punishment, but we too deserve commendation! What a pitiable state this is! To assume that God must become subject to us because of our infirmities!

It is not that the objector truly “believes” this. The objector is trying to force a false dichotomy. “It’s either God is in our debt,” the objector says, “or our injustice does not commend God’s righteousness, and works are achievable by law.”

Yet this strawman, propped up on a pedestal by religious zealots for thousands of years now, still falls flat. It is not God Who misunderstands judgment, but the objector. If God exempts someone from judgment because He planned the injustice, then He must exempt all from judgment, for all have sinned (Rom. 3:23.) He does not do this, but keeps all in judgment. Since it is a part of the process, and not the ultimate destination for anyone, it follows that every heart will inevitably be turned like David. Upon realizing their wrong, they will readily accept God’s corrective measures. Yet, as with David, the corrective measures brought him into abundant appreciation of God to be faithful to the faithless. With the advent of the new blessings He promises in the evangel, all will appreciate God through their correction, knowing that they will then believe, and thus become recipients of the evangel (Rom. 1:16, 3:21-23, 5:18-19, Eph. 1:9-11, Phil. 2:10-11, Col. 1:20.)

The Truth of God

Yet if the truth of God superabounds in my lie, for His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner…

We return to the lovely term “truth” in Romans. The sixth use of “truth” accords with the second use, both of which refer to the truth of God (literally, a truth which comes from God,) and contrasts it with the lie. Both uses are contextual. 1:24 uses “truth of God” to contrast “the lie” of ‘divine’ service toward idols. Here in 3:7, the “truth of God” is used to contrast “the lie” of man’s ability to act righteously. The “truth of God,” then, is that which contrasts man’s lie concerning Him.

Yet not only so, but the truth of God “superabounds” in man’s lie. This special term refers to a great excess. Where mankind lies, God’s truth overflows, even as our injustice commends His righteousness. There is an ellipsis in the passage (for those who don’t know, an “ellipsis” is a statement that should be so obvious that it is not plainly stated.) It is the manifestation of the truth of God which superabounds in man’s lie, not the truth of God itself. The truth of God is not ambiguous or murky; Paul’s answers here have been definitive and plain. It appears in light of man’s lie, as one’s shadow appears in the midday sun. It is not that you are your shadow – the two concepts are distinct – the truth of God does not need correction, while the lie of man does.

Why Am I being Judged?

To cap off the “objections,” Paul now flips the argument on its head, and faces the objector with their own hypocrisy. He starts by insinuating that the objector is intelligent enough to grasp his point – that the truth of God superabounds in man’s lie. He applies this truth to the Jews’ lie that injustice should go unpunished. “If this is true, why should you judge me a sinner?” Paul asks. “If sin’s unjustness is unpunishable, why would you seek to see me condemned?”

Thus the objector is trapped, for the moment. He cannot press on down this line of questioning without conceding one of two points: he would either concede that he does not wish to see God be glorified, or he must concede that he agrees with injustice (the latter of which is the truth, given his opposing position against the judgment of God and endorsement of the disqualified mind – Rom. 1:29-2:2.)

This is shown in the misrepresentation of Paul’s argument as Paul notes in Romans 3:8–

Why am I [Paul] still being judged as a sinner, and why not say, according as we are calumniated and according as some are averring that we are saying, that “We should be doing evil that good may be coming”? – whose judgment is fair.

In truth, the objector does not need to press on. At this point, repentance should be necessary for the objector. Paul has answered all immediate objections which had debarred him from sharing the evangel. The objector, in turn, has been shown to misrepresent Paul and treat the facts as contradictory before hearing the evangel which he has presented. This proves the necessity for the objector’s judgment, yet also prepares a humbled objector to hear the evangel itself.

The callous objector has yet to realize these bizarre conclusions. He threw his argument in full force, only for it to spin like a boomerang, and whack him in the back of the head. My lie is the background for the truth of God to manifest, but, as previously mentioned, this does not preclude my judgment, lest all become exempt from correction and no change or growth occurs.

A few facts for the grammatically inclined, which will help us going forward! First, the term “calumniated” is a verb, blasphemeo, elements “HARM-AVER.” It is, literally, to declare harmful words toward others. It appeared one other time, in 2:24, and will appear once more toward the end of this letter. Often, we associate “blasphemy” with God alone, but there are a number of passages in Holy Writ which associate “blaspheming” with verbal harm toward men (Rom. 14:16, 1 Cor. 4:13, 10:30, 1 Tim. 1:20, Tit. 3:2, 1 Pet. 4:4, etc.) The point is not to deify the man, but to emphasize the harm that lying about another can do.

The irony, of course, is that by lying about God’s evangel, here, the truth of God does superabound, enabling all the more a proper presentation of the facts and their true effects, which will propel us through the end of Romans 8. It is this expression of human pride that inevitably proves Paul’s point, firmly proving the third point Paul makes to prepare us for the evangel:

All are in great need of it. No one escapes the indignation or judgment of God. The human supposition that we can bring good with some “free” will is incorrect. Sin has overpowered our emotional and logical capabilities, diminishing our credibility. Truly, the objections we make and receive are pedantic, and any relative effort God (Who is just and true) makes to answer them are not obligations to us, but to His Son (3:22,) lavishing grace on us (3:24.) He does not have to answer them, so if He does, it is clear that we do not deserve it.

Another important term is “averring,” a term which is, admittedly, rarely used by Paul, and found far more frequently in Matthew and Acts. Unlike “blaspheme,” it is not inherently harmful or biting. This is why, in the former, Paul notes that “we are calumniated,” as he is the recipient of affliction, whereas in the latter, Paul says “some are averring we are saying,” as some proclaim that Paul thinks this without harmful intent. This is the only time “averring” appears in Romans.

Whose Judgment is Fair

With the final clause of the verse, Paul focuses in for the final stretch. Paul noted that every man is a liar (3:4,) since all discount, in some fashion, the righteous principles of truth and love (1:18.) This is who we are, as a race – it is our reality, summarized in the next 10 verses. The judgment that we receive will be fair. The term is endikon, literally “IN+JUST.” No, not “injustice.” The preposition “in” concerns identification. The judgment of God is, as previously mentioned, directly identified with justice. (Rev. 2:5.) The principles of judgment will not deviate from this justice. The only way to appreciate this justice, however, is to look forward at the evangel God presents His justice through (3:21-26.)

The judgment itself is inevitable; mankind is to be condemned (3:9-18.) It is only when we are condemned, and we realize it, that justice can be served, and God’s work of salvation commences (5:18.) Though the objector is silenced, he is not saved or convinced. The objections will persist through chapter 11. I liken one’s ability to apprehend Romans with their spiritual maturity; one who makes the same objections as the objector through chapter 11 evidently has not grasped the character of God, and still prioritizes the perverse reasonings of the race, endorsing the disqualified mind. The less one’s opinion aligns with the objector, the closer one is to appreciating the full scope of the grace unfolded in Romans.

The three objections fall apart. Hereditary privilege fails (3:1.) Unbelief being protected by God’s faithfulness fails (3:3.) The notion that because God is using evil for good magically justifies them fails (3:6.) Sin serves a double purpose in displaying God’s grace on His enemies (this will be proven in the coming chapters,) and also displays His indignation and power to punish His creation – like a parent to a child, He is allowed to do so. To quote Rogers yet again, “God’s righteousness will be glorified in His judgment of the very sin that gives grace its opportunity.”

- GerudoKing