Post by iris89 on Sept 22, 2008 15:02:05 GMT -5
An Understanding of Romans 3:7 In Context, a Commentary:
INTRODUCTION:
Let’s first look at this scripture in context so we can see that the Apostle Paul was having a sort of imaginary argument with himself to illustrate a very important point to his audience.
Romans 3:7, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. 3 For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment. 5 But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) 6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7 But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose condemnation is just.” (American Standard Version: ASV).
However, those lacking Bible knowledge fail to grasp this point, and think the Apostle Paul is saying he is lying due to how this scripture is rendered in some Bibles with regard to Romans 3:7,
7 (Authorized King James Bible, AV) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
7 (American Standard Version: ASV) ) But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
7 (Darby) For if the truth of God, in my lie, has more abounded to his glory, why yet am *I* also judged as a sinner?
7 (Diaglot) If for the truth of the God by the my falsehood abounded to the glory of him, why yet also I as a sinner am judged?
7 (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible: DRCB) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner?
7 (English Revised Version: ERV) But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
And fail to realize he is using an imaginary argument with himself to put a very important point across which a publication, “Insight on the Scriptures,” says,
<<<” The above is the argument that Paul used in his letter to the Romans, saying: “If our unrighteousness brings God’s righteousness to the fore, what shall we say? God is not unjust when he vents his wrath, is he? (I am speaking as a man does.) Never may that happen! How, otherwise, will God judge the world? Yet if by reason of my lie [compare Ps 62:9] the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner? And why not say, just as it is falsely charged to us and just as some men state that we say: ‘Let us do the bad things that the good things may come’? The judgment against those men is in harmony with justice.” (Ro 3:5-8) God has delivered his people, not for a course of sin, but for a life of righteousness, that they may glorify Him. The apostle says later in his letter: “Neither go on presenting your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, also your members to God as weapons of righteousness.”—Ro 6:12, 13.” [source – Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2]>>>.
DETAIL FROM MANY SOURCES:
World renown Bible scholar, John Gill, says of Romans 3:7:
<<<”through my lie to his glory:
nothing is more opposite to truth than a lie; a lie of itself can never be of any advantage to truth, or to the God of truth; nothing is more contrary to the nature of God, and more abominable to him; a lie is of the devil, and punishable with eternal death; wherefore it may seem strange, that the truth of God should abound through it to his glory: now let it be observed, that the apostle is not speaking of himself, nor of his lie of unbelief, in his state of unregeneracy; but in the person of a sinful man, "for every man is a liar", (Romans 3:4) , as he says, "I speak as a man", (Romans 3:5) ; representing a wicked man, who from what was before said, might collect this as the sense of it, that the truth of God is illustrated by the lies of men: and so much may be owned as the apostle's sense, that the truth of God is commended, illustrated, and made to abound, when it is asserted, that he is true and faithful, and every man is a liar, fallacious, and deceitful; "let God be true, and every man a liar", (Romans 3:4) : moreover, the truth of God may be allowed to abound through the lies of men, in a comparative sense, the one being set against the other; and so as contraries do, illustrate each other: this may be assented to, as that sometimes a lie has been overruled by God, for the accomplishing of his purposes and promises, in which his truth and faithfulness have been displayed, as in the cases of Jacob and the Egyptian midwives; but then this does not arise from its nature and tendency, but from the overruling wisdom and providence of God, and therefore not to be excused hereby from sin; and consequently the inference from it is not just, that therefore "no man can, or ought to be, judged as a sinner"; since his sin turns to such account, as to make for the glory of God, which is intimated in the question:
why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
if this be the case, I ought not to be reckoned a sinner, or to be treated as such here, or judged and condemned as one hereafter, which is a most wicked, as well as weak consequence; for though God is true and faithful to his promises, notwithstanding the sins of his people, which are as a foil, to set off the lustre of his truth the more, yet their sins are nevertheless sins, and are taken notice of by him as such, and they are corrected for them; and however God may overrule, in a providential way, the sins of others for his glory, this is no excuse for their sins, nor will it be an exemption of them from punishment. This is the sense of the passage; unless by "the truth of God" should be meant, the Gospel, the word of truth, which is of God; and which through the apostle's "lie", as the Jews might call his ministration of it, "abounded to" the "glory" of God; being spread far and near, and made useful for the conversion of sinners, for turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; and for the planting of churches in the Gentile world, as well as in Judea; which much conduced to the honour of God, and the interest of true religion: and then the meaning of the last clause is, "why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" why am I accounted and condemned as an heretic? as an apostate from the faith? as he was by the Jews, and who are used to call heretics sinners: so "the sinner" in (Ecclesiastes 7:26) is thus interpreted F16, (Mynymh wla) "these are the heretics": and elsewhere it F17 is observed, that concerning the heretics it is said, (Proverbs 10:7) , "the name of the wicked shall rot": and I very much suspect this to be the sense of the word in (John 9:24) , "we know that this man is a sinner"; an heretic, a man of bad principles; and in (John 9:31) ; "now we know that God heareth not sinners"; men of corrupt minds; since this character stands opposed to a worshipper of the God of Israel.” [source - The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible]>>>.
And,
The world renown scholars, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, in their commentary said:
<<<”[[Romans]] 7, 8. For if the truth of God, &c.-A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, "Such reasoning amounts to this-which indeed we who preach salvation by free grace are slanderously accused of teaching-that the more evil we do, the more glory will redound to God; a d**nable principle." (Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks it enough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moral sense).
On this brief section, Note (1) Mark the place here assigned to the Scriptures. In answer to the question, "What advantage hath the Jew?" or, "What profit is there of circumcision?" (Ro 3:1) those holding Romish views would undoubtedly have laid the stress upon the priesthood, as the glory of the Jewish economy. But in the apostle's esteem, "the oracles of God" were the jewel of the ancient Church (Ro 3:1, 2). (2) God's eternal purposes and man's free agency, as also the doctrine of salvation by grace and the unchanging obligations of God's law, have ever been subjected to the charge of inconsistency by those who will bow to no truth which their own reason cannot fathom. But amidst all the clouds and darkness which in this present state envelop the divine administration and many of the truths of the Bible, such broad and deep principles as are here laid down, and which shine in their own luster, will be found the sheet-anchor of our faith. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Ro 3:4); and as many advocates of salvation by grace as say, "Let us do evil that good may come," "their d**nation is just" (Ro 3:8).” [source - Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown]>>>.
And,
Dustin Curlee said in a blog. Post,
<<<” Romans 3:7-8
In vs.3-4 the faithlessness of the Jews in juxtaposition to the unending faithfulness of God is made manifest. Paul anticipates the question, What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? His answer - By no means! It was assumed that only "some" were unfaithful. This was part of the question. Notice, What if some...Does their... Now, a clarifier of Paul's answer to the anticipated question is in v.4 where he says, Let God be found true though every man found a liar. Paul says "every man," and not some, or their. More, he says "let every man be found a liar." In v.5 the sequence continues with, But if our unrighteousness... And now, in our verse today, we read, But if through my lie... So, not only is our verse today, and its question, tied into Paul's statement in v.4, but we see a change in the pronouns throughout this pericope of Scripture. Let me attempt to make this simpler. In v.1 we hear of a race of people called Jews; in v.3 we see in the question the pronoun "some" - the scope becomes narrower; in v.5 the pronoun becomes "our"; in v.7 it is now "my." We see Jews, some, our, and my. In addition to the pronoun changes, in v.4 the statement is that "every man" is found to be a "liar." This cannot be severed from the usage of "lie" in v.7.
Now I will prayerfully seek to unpack this last statement a bit. I'm aware of its depth. I know of its theological implications. Although I am an adherent to the Bible's teaching on the absolute totality of God's sovereignty, as I memorized Roman's I wrestled with the weight of some of these texts. So please understand, the idea that every man, including me, is found to be a liar, and yet is still held accountable, is still staggering - though I concede to its truth. As well, to know that my unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God is overwhelming at times. And it must have been even harder for these 1st century Jews to hear such things. Historical and ancient Jewish writings reveal to us that the Jews have always believed in hard determinism where God's sovereignty is concerned, but now Paul is revealing the truth that this election of God's, this total sovereignty, does not include all Jews as a race. Part of his revealing this is by way of v.4 and his recitation of Psalm 51:4. The Psalmist says, and prevail when you are judged. So, synopsized, Paul reveals that the Jews had an advantage in having the oracles of God, but some were unfaithful. However, this faithlessness is God's plan so that His faithfulness is revealed. God will be found true, or righteous, though every man be found a liar, or unrighteous. The Psalmist is referenced in anticipation of a judgment toward God in light of such a truth. Then it is asked that if unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, do we call into question the righteousness of God for inflicting wrath upon us? The answer, in essence, says that God judges the whole world justly, simply because He is God. And so if through our lie, or unrighteousness, or faithlessness, the truth of God abounds for His own glory, then why are still called sinners? As well, if this is the way God works, why not do Him a favor and commit more evil so that more good may come? Here is where I move forward.
Wrapped up in those two questions is an arrogance and a pride that cannot be fully fathomed, yet! These two questions truly ask, Then if God is so sovereign that my unrighteousness, manifested in any form, reveals His glory and justness, how can He still hold me responsible? And if this is the case, I should continue doing evil to glorify God. The first question presupposes, erroneously, a freedom that we do not have; the second question, or statement, as it were, reveals the sinful foundation for asking the first question, and the result of a sinful heart realizing how sovereign God actually is. Here is what I mean - the first question presupposes freedom. In other words, the first question says, I have a free will. More, I am somehow independent of God in morality. It must be this way or else He could not hold me responsible for sinning. Where is this proven in Scripture? Paul says, Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use (Romans 9:21). Notice, we are referred to as "lumps of clay," and coming from the same mold as the dishonorable vessel (also referred to as a "vessel of wrath" in v.23). And in Scripture we see the revelation that God causes armies to move upon people, swords to be raised in murder, and a Christ to be crucified on a torture stick, and yet He holds the people accountable for what He has decreed! I have run out of space. If I continued I fear this would be far too long for a morning devotional. So I will pick up here tomorrow!” [source - Dustin Curlee at stayingcurrent.blogspot.com/2006/02/romans-37-8-2-1-06.html]>>>.
TRUTH REVEALED WELL IN AN OLD BOOK WHOSE TITLE PAGE HAD BEEN LOST:
<<<” 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.” [source – an old book whose title page had been lost]>>>.
READING WITH UNDERSTANDING:
As one writer, Bart, brought out,
<<<”… A cursory reading suggests that Paul is teaching Christians to deceive, and anyone who had never read the Bible might be lead to believe that in fact this is the case. Now I do not consider myself qualified to comment on much of what was in the article -- I'm a second year Biochemistry student, not a theologian or a historian, and I've been a Christian for less than a year -- but if I quote the remark in context, what the Bible actually says is this:
"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will there lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not 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.'
But 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.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increase his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say -- as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim we say -- 'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." (Romans 3:1-8)
In verse 7 Paul is quoting a hypothetical argument that someone might use in order to justify lying: having quoted this argument he then refutes it! There is no way in which, having read the quotation in context, you could honestly accuse Paul of deception by teaching Christians to tell falsehoods, nor could you accuse him of contradicting Proverbs 14:5.
Now I can accept this was an honest mistake, and I can understand that you feel very strongly about this issue -- so do I otherwise I would not be writing this -- but please, in future, before you quote a verse from the Bible (or the Qur'an for you Christian debaters out there) check the context. In quoting this verse out of context you have become guilty of that which you accuse Christians (and particularly J. Smith): namely lying and deception.
As I said previously, I have no qualification to comment on the rest of your material, and I must confess that at the time of writing I have not had time to read the whole document; but it would be good if you could revise your paper to correct this mistake.” [source – Bart at www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/rom3-7.html on 9/22/2008]
As can be seen from the above, anyone thinking after reading this scripture, Romans 3:7, in context and thinking that the Apostle Paul is teaching Christians to deceive is NOT reading to understand and get the sense of what the Apostle Paul is saying. In fact, most individuals that get this understanding are worshippers of false god(s) who want to deceive themselves into believing an untruth.
As another writer, Warren Doud , put it,
<<<”… Romans 3:4
May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written (Psalm 51:4), That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged.
--------------------
This verse begins with what is the first of ten violent denials Paul makes in Romans.
The phrase id MJ GENOITO , which translates "May it never be!".
FOUR FALSE IDEAS PAUL STANDS AGAINST:
1. Here, that man's unbelief cancels out God's faithfulness, may it never be.
2. Romans 5:20-6:2 Man's sin causes God's grace to be magnified. May it never be.
3. Romans 6:14-15 Since we are under grace and no longer under the law we are free to sin as we please, may it never be.
4. Romans 7:6-7 We are freed from the law so there must have been something sinful about the law, may it never be.
EACH OF THESE FALSE conclusions is wrong and irreverent.
Here in Romans 3:4 Paul uses this strong phrase to express his fear that anyone would draw a false conclusion from what he says.
Paul had to put up with many of the things he said being twisted and misunderstood either through ignorance or evil. He makes this strong statement to cut off any misunderstanding.
He states that man's unbelief cannot cancel out the faithfulness of God. He contrasts the word TRUE for God with the word LIAR for man.
Then he quotes from the confession Psalm of David: "Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, And done what is evil in Thy sight, So that Thou art justified when Thou dost speak, And blameless when Thou dost judge."
…
Romans 3:7
But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?
----------
Here Paul assumes the position of the one who is a liar, as mentioned in verse 4.
Paul assumes the logical proposition.
Through, or as a result of, his lie God's grace abounded to the point God was glorified, why is Paul (as the assumed unbeliever) still facing the judgment of God?
If this was the case man's defense would merely be that through his sin God's glory was even more revealed to mankind. And thus God should not judge man.” [source - Warren Doud at www.realtime.net/~wdoud/romans/rom12.html on 9/22/2008]
CONCLUSION:
As can readily be seen, the Apostle Paul was in his argumentation engaging in an imaginary conversation with himself in order to get a point across, but one could miss this fact on a cursory reading, and this especially so if he did NOT read Romans 3:7 in context – Romans 3:1-8. As one book said, …Paul is carrying on an argument with an imaginary objector. This is how the conversation plays out.
To learn more, check out the following:
[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum
[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam
[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All
[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
INTRODUCTION:
Let’s first look at this scripture in context so we can see that the Apostle Paul was having a sort of imaginary argument with himself to illustrate a very important point to his audience.
Romans 3:7, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. 3 For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment. 5 But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) 6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7 But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose condemnation is just.” (American Standard Version: ASV).
However, those lacking Bible knowledge fail to grasp this point, and think the Apostle Paul is saying he is lying due to how this scripture is rendered in some Bibles with regard to Romans 3:7,
7 (Authorized King James Bible, AV) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
7 (American Standard Version: ASV) ) But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
7 (Darby) For if the truth of God, in my lie, has more abounded to his glory, why yet am *I* also judged as a sinner?
7 (Diaglot) If for the truth of the God by the my falsehood abounded to the glory of him, why yet also I as a sinner am judged?
7 (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible: DRCB) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner?
7 (English Revised Version: ERV) But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
And fail to realize he is using an imaginary argument with himself to put a very important point across which a publication, “Insight on the Scriptures,” says,
<<<” The above is the argument that Paul used in his letter to the Romans, saying: “If our unrighteousness brings God’s righteousness to the fore, what shall we say? God is not unjust when he vents his wrath, is he? (I am speaking as a man does.) Never may that happen! How, otherwise, will God judge the world? Yet if by reason of my lie [compare Ps 62:9] the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner? And why not say, just as it is falsely charged to us and just as some men state that we say: ‘Let us do the bad things that the good things may come’? The judgment against those men is in harmony with justice.” (Ro 3:5-8) God has delivered his people, not for a course of sin, but for a life of righteousness, that they may glorify Him. The apostle says later in his letter: “Neither go on presenting your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, also your members to God as weapons of righteousness.”—Ro 6:12, 13.” [source – Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2]>>>.
DETAIL FROM MANY SOURCES:
World renown Bible scholar, John Gill, says of Romans 3:7:
<<<”through my lie to his glory:
nothing is more opposite to truth than a lie; a lie of itself can never be of any advantage to truth, or to the God of truth; nothing is more contrary to the nature of God, and more abominable to him; a lie is of the devil, and punishable with eternal death; wherefore it may seem strange, that the truth of God should abound through it to his glory: now let it be observed, that the apostle is not speaking of himself, nor of his lie of unbelief, in his state of unregeneracy; but in the person of a sinful man, "for every man is a liar", (Romans 3:4) , as he says, "I speak as a man", (Romans 3:5) ; representing a wicked man, who from what was before said, might collect this as the sense of it, that the truth of God is illustrated by the lies of men: and so much may be owned as the apostle's sense, that the truth of God is commended, illustrated, and made to abound, when it is asserted, that he is true and faithful, and every man is a liar, fallacious, and deceitful; "let God be true, and every man a liar", (Romans 3:4) : moreover, the truth of God may be allowed to abound through the lies of men, in a comparative sense, the one being set against the other; and so as contraries do, illustrate each other: this may be assented to, as that sometimes a lie has been overruled by God, for the accomplishing of his purposes and promises, in which his truth and faithfulness have been displayed, as in the cases of Jacob and the Egyptian midwives; but then this does not arise from its nature and tendency, but from the overruling wisdom and providence of God, and therefore not to be excused hereby from sin; and consequently the inference from it is not just, that therefore "no man can, or ought to be, judged as a sinner"; since his sin turns to such account, as to make for the glory of God, which is intimated in the question:
why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
if this be the case, I ought not to be reckoned a sinner, or to be treated as such here, or judged and condemned as one hereafter, which is a most wicked, as well as weak consequence; for though God is true and faithful to his promises, notwithstanding the sins of his people, which are as a foil, to set off the lustre of his truth the more, yet their sins are nevertheless sins, and are taken notice of by him as such, and they are corrected for them; and however God may overrule, in a providential way, the sins of others for his glory, this is no excuse for their sins, nor will it be an exemption of them from punishment. This is the sense of the passage; unless by "the truth of God" should be meant, the Gospel, the word of truth, which is of God; and which through the apostle's "lie", as the Jews might call his ministration of it, "abounded to" the "glory" of God; being spread far and near, and made useful for the conversion of sinners, for turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; and for the planting of churches in the Gentile world, as well as in Judea; which much conduced to the honour of God, and the interest of true religion: and then the meaning of the last clause is, "why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" why am I accounted and condemned as an heretic? as an apostate from the faith? as he was by the Jews, and who are used to call heretics sinners: so "the sinner" in (Ecclesiastes 7:26) is thus interpreted F16, (Mynymh wla) "these are the heretics": and elsewhere it F17 is observed, that concerning the heretics it is said, (Proverbs 10:7) , "the name of the wicked shall rot": and I very much suspect this to be the sense of the word in (John 9:24) , "we know that this man is a sinner"; an heretic, a man of bad principles; and in (John 9:31) ; "now we know that God heareth not sinners"; men of corrupt minds; since this character stands opposed to a worshipper of the God of Israel.” [source - The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible]>>>.
And,
The world renown scholars, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, in their commentary said:
<<<”[[Romans]] 7, 8. For if the truth of God, &c.-A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, "Such reasoning amounts to this-which indeed we who preach salvation by free grace are slanderously accused of teaching-that the more evil we do, the more glory will redound to God; a d**nable principle." (Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks it enough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moral sense).
On this brief section, Note (1) Mark the place here assigned to the Scriptures. In answer to the question, "What advantage hath the Jew?" or, "What profit is there of circumcision?" (Ro 3:1) those holding Romish views would undoubtedly have laid the stress upon the priesthood, as the glory of the Jewish economy. But in the apostle's esteem, "the oracles of God" were the jewel of the ancient Church (Ro 3:1, 2). (2) God's eternal purposes and man's free agency, as also the doctrine of salvation by grace and the unchanging obligations of God's law, have ever been subjected to the charge of inconsistency by those who will bow to no truth which their own reason cannot fathom. But amidst all the clouds and darkness which in this present state envelop the divine administration and many of the truths of the Bible, such broad and deep principles as are here laid down, and which shine in their own luster, will be found the sheet-anchor of our faith. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Ro 3:4); and as many advocates of salvation by grace as say, "Let us do evil that good may come," "their d**nation is just" (Ro 3:8).” [source - Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown]>>>.
And,
Dustin Curlee said in a blog. Post,
<<<” Romans 3:7-8
In vs.3-4 the faithlessness of the Jews in juxtaposition to the unending faithfulness of God is made manifest. Paul anticipates the question, What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? His answer - By no means! It was assumed that only "some" were unfaithful. This was part of the question. Notice, What if some...Does their... Now, a clarifier of Paul's answer to the anticipated question is in v.4 where he says, Let God be found true though every man found a liar. Paul says "every man," and not some, or their. More, he says "let every man be found a liar." In v.5 the sequence continues with, But if our unrighteousness... And now, in our verse today, we read, But if through my lie... So, not only is our verse today, and its question, tied into Paul's statement in v.4, but we see a change in the pronouns throughout this pericope of Scripture. Let me attempt to make this simpler. In v.1 we hear of a race of people called Jews; in v.3 we see in the question the pronoun "some" - the scope becomes narrower; in v.5 the pronoun becomes "our"; in v.7 it is now "my." We see Jews, some, our, and my. In addition to the pronoun changes, in v.4 the statement is that "every man" is found to be a "liar." This cannot be severed from the usage of "lie" in v.7.
Now I will prayerfully seek to unpack this last statement a bit. I'm aware of its depth. I know of its theological implications. Although I am an adherent to the Bible's teaching on the absolute totality of God's sovereignty, as I memorized Roman's I wrestled with the weight of some of these texts. So please understand, the idea that every man, including me, is found to be a liar, and yet is still held accountable, is still staggering - though I concede to its truth. As well, to know that my unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God is overwhelming at times. And it must have been even harder for these 1st century Jews to hear such things. Historical and ancient Jewish writings reveal to us that the Jews have always believed in hard determinism where God's sovereignty is concerned, but now Paul is revealing the truth that this election of God's, this total sovereignty, does not include all Jews as a race. Part of his revealing this is by way of v.4 and his recitation of Psalm 51:4. The Psalmist says, and prevail when you are judged. So, synopsized, Paul reveals that the Jews had an advantage in having the oracles of God, but some were unfaithful. However, this faithlessness is God's plan so that His faithfulness is revealed. God will be found true, or righteous, though every man be found a liar, or unrighteous. The Psalmist is referenced in anticipation of a judgment toward God in light of such a truth. Then it is asked that if unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, do we call into question the righteousness of God for inflicting wrath upon us? The answer, in essence, says that God judges the whole world justly, simply because He is God. And so if through our lie, or unrighteousness, or faithlessness, the truth of God abounds for His own glory, then why are still called sinners? As well, if this is the way God works, why not do Him a favor and commit more evil so that more good may come? Here is where I move forward.
Wrapped up in those two questions is an arrogance and a pride that cannot be fully fathomed, yet! These two questions truly ask, Then if God is so sovereign that my unrighteousness, manifested in any form, reveals His glory and justness, how can He still hold me responsible? And if this is the case, I should continue doing evil to glorify God. The first question presupposes, erroneously, a freedom that we do not have; the second question, or statement, as it were, reveals the sinful foundation for asking the first question, and the result of a sinful heart realizing how sovereign God actually is. Here is what I mean - the first question presupposes freedom. In other words, the first question says, I have a free will. More, I am somehow independent of God in morality. It must be this way or else He could not hold me responsible for sinning. Where is this proven in Scripture? Paul says, Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use (Romans 9:21). Notice, we are referred to as "lumps of clay," and coming from the same mold as the dishonorable vessel (also referred to as a "vessel of wrath" in v.23). And in Scripture we see the revelation that God causes armies to move upon people, swords to be raised in murder, and a Christ to be crucified on a torture stick, and yet He holds the people accountable for what He has decreed! I have run out of space. If I continued I fear this would be far too long for a morning devotional. So I will pick up here tomorrow!” [source - Dustin Curlee at stayingcurrent.blogspot.com/2006/02/romans-37-8-2-1-06.html]>>>.
TRUTH REVEALED WELL IN AN OLD BOOK WHOSE TITLE PAGE HAD BEEN LOST:
<<<” 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.” [source – an old book whose title page had been lost]>>>.
READING WITH UNDERSTANDING:
As one writer, Bart, brought out,
<<<”… A cursory reading suggests that Paul is teaching Christians to deceive, and anyone who had never read the Bible might be lead to believe that in fact this is the case. Now I do not consider myself qualified to comment on much of what was in the article -- I'm a second year Biochemistry student, not a theologian or a historian, and I've been a Christian for less than a year -- but if I quote the remark in context, what the Bible actually says is this:
"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will there lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not 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.'
But 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.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increase his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say -- as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim we say -- 'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." (Romans 3:1-8)
In verse 7 Paul is quoting a hypothetical argument that someone might use in order to justify lying: having quoted this argument he then refutes it! There is no way in which, having read the quotation in context, you could honestly accuse Paul of deception by teaching Christians to tell falsehoods, nor could you accuse him of contradicting Proverbs 14:5.
Now I can accept this was an honest mistake, and I can understand that you feel very strongly about this issue -- so do I otherwise I would not be writing this -- but please, in future, before you quote a verse from the Bible (or the Qur'an for you Christian debaters out there) check the context. In quoting this verse out of context you have become guilty of that which you accuse Christians (and particularly J. Smith): namely lying and deception.
As I said previously, I have no qualification to comment on the rest of your material, and I must confess that at the time of writing I have not had time to read the whole document; but it would be good if you could revise your paper to correct this mistake.” [source – Bart at www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/rom3-7.html on 9/22/2008]
As can be seen from the above, anyone thinking after reading this scripture, Romans 3:7, in context and thinking that the Apostle Paul is teaching Christians to deceive is NOT reading to understand and get the sense of what the Apostle Paul is saying. In fact, most individuals that get this understanding are worshippers of false god(s) who want to deceive themselves into believing an untruth.
As another writer, Warren Doud , put it,
<<<”… Romans 3:4
May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written (Psalm 51:4), That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged.
--------------------
This verse begins with what is the first of ten violent denials Paul makes in Romans.
The phrase id MJ GENOITO , which translates "May it never be!".
FOUR FALSE IDEAS PAUL STANDS AGAINST:
1. Here, that man's unbelief cancels out God's faithfulness, may it never be.
2. Romans 5:20-6:2 Man's sin causes God's grace to be magnified. May it never be.
3. Romans 6:14-15 Since we are under grace and no longer under the law we are free to sin as we please, may it never be.
4. Romans 7:6-7 We are freed from the law so there must have been something sinful about the law, may it never be.
EACH OF THESE FALSE conclusions is wrong and irreverent.
Here in Romans 3:4 Paul uses this strong phrase to express his fear that anyone would draw a false conclusion from what he says.
Paul had to put up with many of the things he said being twisted and misunderstood either through ignorance or evil. He makes this strong statement to cut off any misunderstanding.
He states that man's unbelief cannot cancel out the faithfulness of God. He contrasts the word TRUE for God with the word LIAR for man.
Then he quotes from the confession Psalm of David: "Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, And done what is evil in Thy sight, So that Thou art justified when Thou dost speak, And blameless when Thou dost judge."
…
Romans 3:7
But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?
----------
Here Paul assumes the position of the one who is a liar, as mentioned in verse 4.
Paul assumes the logical proposition.
Through, or as a result of, his lie God's grace abounded to the point God was glorified, why is Paul (as the assumed unbeliever) still facing the judgment of God?
If this was the case man's defense would merely be that through his sin God's glory was even more revealed to mankind. And thus God should not judge man.” [source - Warren Doud at www.realtime.net/~wdoud/romans/rom12.html on 9/22/2008]
CONCLUSION:
As can readily be seen, the Apostle Paul was in his argumentation engaging in an imaginary conversation with himself in order to get a point across, but one could miss this fact on a cursory reading, and this especially so if he did NOT read Romans 3:7 in context – Romans 3:1-8. As one book said, …Paul is carrying on an argument with an imaginary objector. This is how the conversation plays out.
To learn more, check out the following:
[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum
[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam
[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All
[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89