R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 1 Study By: Greg Herrick
A. Introduction
“Charles Darwin died in April 1882. He wished to be buried in his beloved v
illage, but the sentiment of educated men demanded a place in Westminster Ab
bey beside Isaac Newton. As his coffin entered the vast building, the choir
sang an anthem composed for the occasion. It’s text, from the book of Prove
rbs, may stand as the most fitting testimony to Darwin’s greatness: ‘Happy
is the man that findeth wisdom, and getteth understanding. She is more prec
ious than rubies, and all the things that thou canst desire are not to be co
mpared to her.’”
So wrote Stephen Jay Gould, the eminent Harvard paleontologist, professor of
geology, and ardent evolutionist in Discover magazine in 1982.
Darwin was not buried in Westminster Abbey because he was a staunch defender
of the faith. While he was not a friend of the church, neither was he an at
heist. Continues Gould, “He probably retained a belief in some kind of pers
onal God—but he did not grant his deity a directly and continuously interve
ning role in the evolutionary process.”
Darwin was, however, buried at Westminster because of the profound contribut
ion he made to science. Again, quoting Gould, “Educated men demanded” he b
e laid there.
All this is not to name Darwin as the lone culprit responsible for the crisi
s of faith precipitated by evolutionary science. It is merely an illustratio
n full of ironies and one grand truth. It is ironic that his final tribute w
as a scriptural anthem. Likewise ironic is that his final wishes were not ho
nored and he was buried within the church. Even the choice of Scripture in t
he anthem is ironic: Proverbs, and the pursuit of wisdom.
The Grand Truth, however, is that Scripture and God have the last word. Darw
in’s burial inadvertently acknowledges that faith has the last say over men
and their ideas.”35
This is perhaps the central truth of Romans 3:1-8: “Let God be proven true!
” Let God have the last word! | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 2 B. Translation of Passage in NET
3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circ
umcision?
3:2 Actually, there are many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrust
ed with the oracles of God.
3:3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the fait
hfulness of God?
3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and all mankind shown up as liar
s, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and
will prevail when you are judged.”
3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what s
hall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he? (I am spe
aking in human terms.)
3:6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world?
3:7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances to his glory, why am I still
actually being judged as a sinner?
3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it?” (as som
e who slander us allege that we say. Their condemnation is deserved!) | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 3 C. Full Exegetical Outline
Idea: Though there is advantage in being a Jew this does not mean that unfai
thfulness and sin will render God unfaithful or that such behavior will not
go unpunished, even if it does demonstrate the righteousness of God.
I. The fact that God does not automatically bless circumcision does not mean
that there is no value in being a Jew for the Jews have indeed been blessed
, having receiving the very oracles of God (3:1-2).
A. What advantage does the Jew have or what is the value of circumcision (3:
1)?
B. There are many advantages to being a Jew including the fact that they hav
e been entrusted with the oracles of God (3:2).
II. The unbelief of the Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness, but rathe
r God will be justified in his words and prevail when he judges, just as it
says in Psalm 116:11 (3:3-4).
A. Will Jewish unbelief lead to God being unfaithful (3:3)?
B. God will be proven true and every man a liar (3:4).
C. God will be proven true and every man a liar for this is what Psalm 116:1
1 says (3:4).
III. The belief that God is unrighteous because he punishes us for sin—sin
which enhances his truthfulness and glory—is false for it renders impossibl
e the judgment of the world and leads to the just condemnation of those who
argue: “Let us do evil that good may result” (3:5-8)!
A. Even if our sin demonstrates the righteousness of God, he is not unjust t
o inflict wrath on us (3:5-6)
1. What shall we say if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness o
f God (3:5)?
2. God, who inflicts wrath, is not unrighteous, is he (3:5)?
3. If God were unrighteous, how could he judge the world (3:6)?
B. Those who think they can lie and do evil in order that God’s glory might
be enhanced and good may result deserve condemnation (3:7-8).
1. Why am I still judged as a sinner when my lie enhances the glory of God (
3:7)?
2. Those who say, as they have about Paul, “let us do evil that good may re
sult,” deserve condemnation (3:8).
D. Simple Point Outline
Idea: Privilege and Responsibility—Twin Pillars Undergirding a Healthy Chri
stian Perspective
I. There Is Advantage and Value in Being a Jew (3:1-2)
A. Being A Jew (3:1)
B. The Oracles of God (3:2)
II. God’s Faithfulness in the Midst of Jewish Unfaithfulness (3:3-4)
A. God Is Faithful and True No Matter What (3:3)
B. The Use of Psalm 116:11 (3:4)
III. God Righteousness Enhanced by Sin (3:5-8)
A. Yet He Justly Inflicts Wrath (3:5-6)
B. Yet He Justly Condemns (3:7-8) | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 4 E. Exposition Proper
Since the Jew is just as guilty as the Gentile (2:1-5; 17-23) and cannot sim
ply appeal to the token of circumcision to secure immunity from judgment (2:
24-29), the question might reasonably be asked—with the intention of impugn
ing God’s character and plan—what advantage is there, then, in being a Jew
or what is the value of circumcision? After all, it seems as if Paul just g
ot finished saying in 2:1-29 that there is no advantage whatsoever. Paul ans
wers this question and other related ones in 3:1-8 by saying that there is g
reat advantage in being a Jew but it does not lie in a de facto exemption fr
om judgment—even if that sin magnifies God’s righteousness.
The implication in the above argument is that Paul is still dealing with the
Jews in 3:1-8. Some, however, argue that the Jews are in view only through
verse 4a. But the most likely and natural antecedent for the pronouns “our”
(3:5), “we” (3:5), and “my” (3:7) is the Jews of 3:1-4. Further, the ac
cusation that Paul’s “law-free” gospel leads to greater sinfulness in 3:8
undoubtedly came from Jews who clung to the Law of Moses. Finally, the logi
c of the paragraph as a whole develops in keeping with the questions asked i
n 3:1-2—questions which revolve around being a Jew. Therefore, we regard 3:
1-8 as dealing with Jews.
3:1-2 In 2:1-29 Paul criticizes the Jew for his misunderstanding of circumci
sion and for his arrogant hypocrisy. With such a negative analysis, one wond
ers whether there ever was any advantage in being a Jew. Lest certain people
conclude incorrectly, however, Paul turns his attention to this urgent ques
tion in 3:1-8. In short, though his denuinciation was severe in 2:1-29, the
apostle nonetheless says that there are benefits for those who are God’s ch
osen people; there is value (hJ wjfevleia, he opheleia; cf. 2:25) to circumc
ision.
The expression there are many advantages (poluV kataV pavnta trovpon, polu k
ata panta tropon) literally reads “much according to every way.” This does
not mean that the Jew had advantages in every way without exception, since
this interpretation would practically render 2:1-29 and the criticism there
obsolete. The point that Paul is making, rather, is that the Jew had advanta
ges in many different kinds of ways. For example, the apostle says, of first
(prw~ton, proton) importance, they have been entrusted with the oracles of
God (ejpisteuvqhsan taV lovgia tou' qeou', episteuthesan ta logia tou theou)
. God considered it a trust and took the risk to give Israel a revelation of
himself and his purposes.
The oracles of God refer to God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament and
may have a particular focus on God’s statements about how he chose Israel t
o be his people (Exod 19:3-6) and the promises he made, especially those to
Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15; 17; 11:1) and David (2 Sam 7:8-16; Ps 89; Isa 55:3;
Rom 1:3-4; 15:12). The expression might also include the Law of Moses which
would place Paul in agreement with the Jew who says that in the law “we ha
ve the essential features of knowledge and truth” (2:20).
3:3 Paul now asks a question: If some Jews did not believe, will their unbel
ief nullify God’s faithfulness? Note the ironic contrast between God entrus
ting (ejpisteuvqhsan, episteuthesan) oracles to the Jews and some of them no
t believing, i.e., trusting the God of those oracles (hjpivsthsan, epistesan
).
The question is, what in particular did they not believe? The straight forwa
rd answer is, “they did not believe the oracles.” But the oracles are not
ends in themselves, but rather they speak to the promises and purposes of Go
d. This may indicate an oblique reference to Christ. Thus, it is entirely re
asonable to argue that the Jews’ failure to believe the oracles of God is p
articularly evident in their failure to accept Christ—the Ultimate fulfillm
ent of the promises contained in the oracles (Rom 10:4; 15:12).
But notice that Paul says only some (tine", tines) did not believe. In light
of passages like 11:25 and the dismal overall reaction of the Jews to Chris
t, we may say that Paul is being gracious here by deliberately understating
the case. Indeed, most did not believe God. In any event, there is a believi
ng Jewish remnant at the present time for which Paul is thankful and to whic
h the early chapters of the book of Acts testifies (11:5; Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4
). | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 5 3:4 The answer to Paul’s question in v. 3 comes in v. 4: it is an emphatic
“absolutely not.” There is no way possible for the unbelief of the Jews to
nullify or render inoperative the faithfulness of God. God will be true to
what he has said. This will be demonstrated in the final judgment.
The purview in v. 4 does not exclude judgment in the present, but the focus
is on the final judgment when God will be shown to have been true all along
and every man, particularly the Jew, shown to have been faithless and a liar
. Paul says that the Jew talked a better game than he ever played, thus he w
ill be shown to have been a liar. The term true (ajlhqhv", alethes) means th
at God will act consistently with what he has said he will do. This includes
blessing Israel as well as judging her, as the subsequent quotation from Ps
51:4 indicates (Ps 51:6 MT).
The quotation from Ps 51:4 is taken almost verbatim from the Greek OT (Ps 50
:6 LXX), with only minor modifications. In Psalm 51 David humbly cries out t
o God for forgiveness because of his sin with Bathsheba. The point of v. 4 i
s that David admits he is a sinner against God and therefore God is proved r
ight when he speaks and justified when he judges. Paul says that even the ki
ng of Israel, David himself, who enjoyed an excellent overall reputation in
first century Judaism, had to be judged for his sin. Thus God is true to ble
ss and to punish no matter who the offending party is. The Jew, then, who th
inks that God is unjust and unfaithful when he makes promises to his people
on the one hand, and then judges them for sin on the other, is sadly mistake
n. In fact, this state of affairs actually proves that God is true and that
men are liars.
3:5-6 In 3:5 Paul anticipates what one of his Jewish friends might say and f
rames the objection in light of a purely human argument, that is, an argumen
t that sounds typical of the kinds of things men say in general. Someone mig
ht try to argue that “if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness
of God, why is he still just when he inflicts wrath on us?” The obvious an
swer to this argument—an emphatic denial of its conclusion—comes forcefull
y in v. 6.
Paul refers here to the righteousness of God (qeou~ dikaiwsuvnhn, theou dika
iosunen). It is unlikely in this context that he is referring to God’s savi
ng activity which formed part of the meaning in 1:17. Neither is he referrin
g to forensic justification or the status of those whom God saves by the pow
er of the gospel. The context is entirely too negative for such interpretati
ons. The best understanding of the expression here in 3:5 is as a reference
to the perfect moral character of God, his perfect holiness. The point Paul
is making, then, is that man’s sin only serves, by way of sharp contrast, t
o demonstrate the blinding holiness of God. This means that God is in no way
unrighteous (a[diko", adikos) when he inflicts wrath (ejpifevrwn thVn ojrgh
vn, epipheron ten orgen). Ultimately, on the day of wrath, when he calls all
men to give an account, the truth of his righteous character will become un
iversally known (Rom 14:10; Heb 4:13).
3:7 The hypothetical argument laid out in 3:5 is repeated in a slightly diff
erent form and with greater emphasis in 3:7. Here the point is not simply th
at God’s righteousness is demonstrated by my unrighteousness, but rather th
at my lying or falsehood enhances (ejperivsseusen, eperisseusen; lit. “over
flows” “abounds”) the truth to his glory. The implication is that the glo
ry of his righteousness is realized in ways it otherwise would not be. But w
hile Paul says that it is true that our unrighteousness magnifies and makes
visible the sterling character of God, it does not follow in any way, shape,
or form, that we should not therefore be judged as a sinner. We most certai
nly should be, and indeed we will be.
3:8 The punctuation in this verse is difficult to establish with certainty,
but the NET Bible has admirably captured what is perhaps the best rendering.
The overall point of the verse, though the Greek is somewhat tangled seems f
airly clear enough. The first part of the verse is a rejoinder to the object
ion outlined in the previous verse. In other words, if a person is going to
argue that their sin enhances God’s glory, then why not do more evil so tha
t good (taV ajgaqav, ta agatha; i.e., the realization of God’s glory) may b
e even more abundant? Such an argument in God's moral universe is absurd to
say the least.
Nonetheless, there were certain Jews who had accused Paul of actually teachi
ng this doctrine. This is undoubtedly due to his treatment of the Law and th
e feeling that if one does away with the Law—like Paul had supposedly done—
then sin will run rampant. But Paul never taught the unqualified removal of
the Law, only a different understanding of its role in salvation and sanctif
ication (cf. Rom 3:21; 7:6, 12; 13:8-10).
Paul's final comment about such “human” arguments is unambiguous: the cond
emnation (krivma, krima) of those who argue that we should commit sin so tha
t good may come is deserved (e[ndikon, endikon; cf. Heb 2:2).
F. Homiletical Idea and Outline
Idea: Be Careful How You Think about Sin!
I. Understand The Blessing of Being a Christian (3:1-2)
A. You Bear the Name Christian (3:1)
B. You Have Received the Word of God (3:2)
II. But Also Understand God’s Faithfulness and How He Judges Unbelief and S
in (3:3-8)
A. Lest We Think God Is Unfaithful When He Judges Unbelief (3:3-4)
B. Lest We Think Our Sin Is in Any Way Profitable Before God (3:5-8)
1. For God Is A Just Judge (3:5-6)
a. The Argument (3:5)
b. The Verdict (3:6)
2. For God Will Judge People as Sinners (3:7-8)
a. The Argument (3:7-8a)
b. The Verdict (3:8b) | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 6 G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology
Romans 3:1-8 contributes to our understanding of sin (hamartiology) and how
God will deal with it. We are not to think for one minute that even though o
ur sin demonstrates the infinite righteousness of our perfect God that we ar
e therefore excused in some way from judgment or have thus been given licens
e to sin. Paul reserves strong language for those who follow this train of r
easoning. No matter how much glory God receives as a result of our sin, sin
will always be punished and God will always remain just.
We need to briefly spell out, however, a more integrated view of the Pauline
concept of judgment. First, the deciding factor in judgment concerning our
eternal destiny is our relationship to Christ and his saving work. If we hav
e trusted in him (3:21-26) we are saved and saved eternally (Rom 8:38-39). G
od will, however, discipline us for our sin in the here and now, and we will
lose reward at the final judgment (1 Cor 11:30; cf. Heb 12:1-11).
If, on the other hand, we have not trusted in Christ and have no personal re
lationship with him, we will be judged for our sin with eternal consequences
(2 Thess 1:8-9; cf. John 5:28-29). Hell is a reality which eternally demons
trates God's holy justice and which is created for those who just can't stom
ach having to think about God (so C. S. Lewis; cf. Rom 1:18-20).
H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission
In our churches we need to ensure that we are not excusing sin under the pre
tense of grace. This does not entail the idea of “running around” looking
for others’ sin, but it does mean staying close to the Lord and keeping a c
lean slate before him, both in the church and in the world (Ephesians 5:3; 1
Peter 3:15-16)! It also entails the idea of leaders carrying out church dis
cipline in a loving and impartial way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
35 R. Kent Hughes, 1001 Great Stories and Quotes (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1998
), 239-40. | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 7 Study By: Greg Herrick
A. Introduction
“Charles Darwin died in April 1882. He wished to be buried in his beloved v
illage, but the sentiment of educated men demanded a place in Westminster Ab
bey beside Isaac Newton. As his coffin entered the vast building, the choir
sang an anthem composed for the occasion. It’s text, from the book of Prove
rbs, may stand as the most fitting testimony to Darwin’s greatness: ‘Happy
is the man that findeth wisdom, and getteth understanding. She is more prec
ious than rubies, and all the things that thou canst desire are not to be co
mpared to her.’”
So wrote Stephen Jay Gould, the eminent Harvard paleontologist, professor of
geology, and ardent evolutionist in Discover magazine in 1982.
Darwin was not buried in Westminster Abbey because he was a staunch defender
of the faith. While he was not a friend of the church, neither was he an at
heist. Continues Gould, “He probably retained a belief in some kind of pers
onal God—but he did not grant his deity a directly and continuously interve
ning role in the evolutionary process.”
Darwin was, however, buried at Westminster because of the profound contribut
ion he made to science. Again, quoting Gould, “Educated men demanded” he b
e laid there.
All this is not to name Darwin as the lone culprit responsible for the crisi
s of faith precipitated by evolutionary science. It is merely an illustratio
n full of ironies and one grand truth. It is ironic that his final tribute w
as a scriptural anthem. Likewise ironic is that his final wishes were not ho
nored and he was buried within the church. Even the choice of Scripture in t
he anthem is ironic: Proverbs, and the pursuit of wisdom.
The Grand Truth, however, is that Scripture and God have the last word. Darw
in’s burial inadvertently acknowledges that faith has the last say over men
and their ideas.”35
This is perhaps the central truth of Romans 3:1-8: “Let God be proven true!
” Let God have the last word! | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 8 B. Translation of Passage in NET
3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circ
umcision?
3:2 Actually, there are many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrust
ed with the oracles of God.
3:3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the fait
hfulness of God?
3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and all mankind shown up as liar
s, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and
will prevail when you are judged.”
3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what s
hall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he? (I am spe
aking in human terms.)
3:6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world?
3:7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances to his glory, why am I still
actually being judged as a sinner?
3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it?” (as som
e who slander us allege that we say. Their condemnation is deserved!) | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 9 C. Full Exegetical Outline
Idea: Though there is advantage in being a Jew this does not mean that unfai
thfulness and sin will render God unfaithful or that such behavior will not
go unpunished, even if it does demonstrate the righteousness of God.
I. The fact that God does not automatically bless circumcision does not mean
that there is no value in being a Jew for the Jews have indeed been blessed
, having receiving the very oracles of God (3:1-2).
A. What advantage does the Jew have or what is the value of circumcision (3:
1)?
B. There are many advantages to being a Jew including the fact that they hav
e been entrusted with the oracles of God (3:2).
II. The unbelief of the Jews does not nullify God’s faithfulness, but rathe
r God will be justified in his words and prevail when he judges, just as it
says in Psalm 116:11 (3:3-4).
A. Will Jewish unbelief lead to God being unfaithful (3:3)?
B. God will be proven true and every man a liar (3:4).
C. God will be proven true and every man a liar for this is what Psalm 116:1
1 says (3:4).
III. The belief that God is unrighteous because he punishes us for sin—sin
which enhances his truthfulness and glory—is false for it renders impossibl
e the judgment of the world and leads to the just condemnation of those who
argue: “Let us do evil that good may result” (3:5-8)!
A. Even if our sin demonstrates the righteousness of God, he is not unjust t
o inflict wrath on us (3:5-6)
1. What shall we say if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness o
f God (3:5)?
2. God, who inflicts wrath, is not unrighteous, is he (3:5)?
3. If God were unrighteous, how could he judge the world (3:6)?
B. Those who think they can lie and do evil in order that God’s glory might
be enhanced and good may result deserve condemnation (3:7-8).
1. Why am I still judged as a sinner when my lie enhances the glory of God (
3:7)?
2. Those who say, as they have about Paul, “let us do evil that good may re
sult,” deserve condemnation (3:8).
D. Simple Point Outline
Idea: Privilege and Responsibility—Twin Pillars Undergirding a Healthy Chri
stian Perspective
I. There Is Advantage and Value in Being a Jew (3:1-2)
A. Being A Jew (3:1)
B. The Oracles of God (3:2)
II. God’s Faithfulness in the Midst of Jewish Unfaithfulness (3:3-4)
A. God Is Faithful and True No Matter What (3:3)
B. The Use of Psalm 116:11 (3:4)
III. God Righteousness Enhanced by Sin (3:5-8)
A. Yet He Justly Inflicts Wrath (3:5-6)
B. Yet He Justly Condemns (3:7-8) | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 10 E. Exposition Proper
Since the Jew is just as guilty as the Gentile (2:1-5; 17-23) and cannot sim
ply appeal to the token of circumcision to secure immunity from judgment (2:
24-29), the question might reasonably be asked—with the intention of impugn
ing God’s character and plan—what advantage is there, then, in being a Jew
or what is the value of circumcision? After all, it seems as if Paul just g
ot finished saying in 2:1-29 that there is no advantage whatsoever. Paul ans
wers this question and other related ones in 3:1-8 by saying that there is g
reat advantage in being a Jew but it does not lie in a de facto exemption fr
om judgment—even if that sin magnifies God’s righteousness.
The implication in the above argument is that Paul is still dealing with the
Jews in 3:1-8. Some, however, argue that the Jews are in view only through
verse 4a. But the most likely and natural antecedent for the pronouns “our”
(3:5), “we” (3:5), and “my” (3:7) is the Jews of 3:1-4. Further, the ac
cusation that Paul’s “law-free” gospel leads to greater sinfulness in 3:8
undoubtedly came from Jews who clung to the Law of Moses. Finally, the logi
c of the paragraph as a whole develops in keeping with the questions asked i
n 3:1-2—questions which revolve around being a Jew. Therefore, we regard 3:
1-8 as dealing with Jews.
3:1-2 In 2:1-29 Paul criticizes the Jew for his misunderstanding of circumci
sion and for his arrogant hypocrisy. With such a negative analysis, one wond
ers whether there ever was any advantage in being a Jew. Lest certain people
conclude incorrectly, however, Paul turns his attention to this urgent ques
tion in 3:1-8. In short, though his denuinciation was severe in 2:1-29, the
apostle nonetheless says that there are benefits for those who are God’s ch
osen people; there is value (hJ wjfevleia, he opheleia; cf. 2:25) to circumc
ision.
The expression there are many advantages (poluV kataV pavnta trovpon, polu k
ata panta tropon) literally reads “much according to every way.” This does
not mean that the Jew had advantages in every way without exception, since
this interpretation would practically render 2:1-29 and the criticism there
obsolete. The point that Paul is making, rather, is that the Jew had advanta
ges in many different kinds of ways. For example, the apostle says, of first
(prw~ton, proton) importance, they have been entrusted with the oracles of
God (ejpisteuvqhsan taV lovgia tou' qeou', episteuthesan ta logia tou theou)
. God considered it a trust and took the risk to give Israel a revelation of
himself and his purposes.
The oracles of God refer to God’s self-revelation in the Old Testament and
may have a particular focus on God’s statements about how he chose Israel t
o be his people (Exod 19:3-6) and the promises he made, especially those to
Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15; 17; 11:1) and David (2 Sam 7:8-16; Ps 89; Isa 55:3;
Rom 1:3-4; 15:12). The expression might also include the Law of Moses which
would place Paul in agreement with the Jew who says that in the law “we ha
ve the essential features of knowledge and truth” (2:20).
3:3 Paul now asks a question: If some Jews did not believe, will their unbel
ief nullify God’s faithfulness? Note the ironic contrast between God entrus
ting (ejpisteuvqhsan, episteuthesan) oracles to the Jews and some of them no
t believing, i.e., trusting the God of those oracles (hjpivsthsan, epistesan
).
The question is, what in particular did they not believe? The straight forwa
rd answer is, “they did not believe the oracles.” But the oracles are not
ends in themselves, but rather they speak to the promises and purposes of Go
d. This may indicate an oblique reference to Christ. Thus, it is entirely re
asonable to argue that the Jews’ failure to believe the oracles of God is p
articularly evident in their failure to accept Christ—the Ultimate fulfillm
ent of the promises contained in the oracles (Rom 10:4; 15:12).
But notice that Paul says only some (tine", tines) did not believe. In light
of passages like 11:25 and the dismal overall reaction of the Jews to Chris
t, we may say that Paul is being gracious here by deliberately understating
the case. Indeed, most did not believe God. In any event, there is a believi
ng Jewish remnant at the present time for which Paul is thankful and to whic
h the early chapters of the book of Acts testifies (11:5; Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4
). | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 11 3:4 The answer to Paul’s question in v. 3 comes in v. 4: it is an emphatic
“absolutely not.” There is no way possible for the unbelief of the Jews to
nullify or render inoperative the faithfulness of God. God will be true to
what he has said. This will be demonstrated in the final judgment.
The purview in v. 4 does not exclude judgment in the present, but the focus
is on the final judgment when God will be shown to have been true all along
and every man, particularly the Jew, shown to have been faithless and a liar
. Paul says that the Jew talked a better game than he ever played, thus he w
ill be shown to have been a liar. The term true (ajlhqhv", alethes) means th
at God will act consistently with what he has said he will do. This includes
blessing Israel as well as judging her, as the subsequent quotation from Ps
51:4 indicates (Ps 51:6 MT).
The quotation from Ps 51:4 is taken almost verbatim from the Greek OT (Ps 50
:6 LXX), with only minor modifications. In Psalm 51 David humbly cries out t
o God for forgiveness because of his sin with Bathsheba. The point of v. 4 i
s that David admits he is a sinner against God and therefore God is proved r
ight when he speaks and justified when he judges. Paul says that even the ki
ng of Israel, David himself, who enjoyed an excellent overall reputation in
first century Judaism, had to be judged for his sin. Thus God is true to ble
ss and to punish no matter who the offending party is. The Jew, then, who th
inks that God is unjust and unfaithful when he makes promises to his people
on the one hand, and then judges them for sin on the other, is sadly mistake
n. In fact, this state of affairs actually proves that God is true and that
men are liars.
3:5-6 In 3:5 Paul anticipates what one of his Jewish friends might say and f
rames the objection in light of a purely human argument, that is, an argumen
t that sounds typical of the kinds of things men say in general. Someone mig
ht try to argue that “if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness
of God, why is he still just when he inflicts wrath on us?” The obvious an
swer to this argument—an emphatic denial of its conclusion—comes forcefull
y in v. 6.
Paul refers here to the righteousness of God (qeou~ dikaiwsuvnhn, theou dika
iosunen). It is unlikely in this context that he is referring to God’s savi
ng activity which formed part of the meaning in 1:17. Neither is he referrin
g to forensic justification or the status of those whom God saves by the pow
er of the gospel. The context is entirely too negative for such interpretati
ons. The best understanding of the expression here in 3:5 is as a reference
to the perfect moral character of God, his perfect holiness. The point Paul
is making, then, is that man’s sin only serves, by way of sharp contrast, t
o demonstrate the blinding holiness of God. This means that God is in no way
unrighteous (a[diko", adikos) when he inflicts wrath (ejpifevrwn thVn ojrgh
vn, epipheron ten orgen). Ultimately, on the day of wrath, when he calls all
men to give an account, the truth of his righteous character will become un
iversally known (Rom 14:10; Heb 4:13).
3:7 The hypothetical argument laid out in 3:5 is repeated in a slightly diff
erent form and with greater emphasis in 3:7. Here the point is not simply th
at God’s righteousness is demonstrated by my unrighteousness, but rather th
at my lying or falsehood enhances (ejperivsseusen, eperisseusen; lit. “over
flows” “abounds”) the truth to his glory. The implication is that the glo
ry of his righteousness is realized in ways it otherwise would not be. But w
hile Paul says that it is true that our unrighteousness magnifies and makes
visible the sterling character of God, it does not follow in any way, shape,
or form, that we should not therefore be judged as a sinner. We most certai
nly should be, and indeed we will be.
3:8 The punctuation in this verse is difficult to establish with certainty,
but the NET Bible has admirably captured what is perhaps the best rendering.
The overall point of the verse, though the Greek is somewhat tangled seems f
airly clear enough. The first part of the verse is a rejoinder to the object
ion outlined in the previous verse. In other words, if a person is going to
argue that their sin enhances God’s glory, then why not do more evil so tha
t good (taV ajgaqav, ta agatha; i.e., the realization of God’s glory) may b
e even more abundant? Such an argument in God's moral universe is absurd to
say the least.
Nonetheless, there were certain Jews who had accused Paul of actually teachi
ng this doctrine. This is undoubtedly due to his treatment of the Law and th
e feeling that if one does away with the Law—like Paul had supposedly done—
then sin will run rampant. But Paul never taught the unqualified removal of
the Law, only a different understanding of its role in salvation and sanctif
ication (cf. Rom 3:21; 7:6, 12; 13:8-10).
Paul's final comment about such “human” arguments is unambiguous: the cond
emnation (krivma, krima) of those who argue that we should commit sin so tha
t good may come is deserved (e[ndikon, endikon; cf. Heb 2:2).
F. Homiletical Idea and Outline
Idea: Be Careful How You Think about Sin!
I. Understand The Blessing of Being a Christian (3:1-2)
A. You Bear the Name Christian (3:1)
B. You Have Received the Word of God (3:2)
II. But Also Understand God’s Faithfulness and How He Judges Unbelief and S
in (3:3-8)
A. Lest We Think God Is Unfaithful When He Judges Unbelief (3:3-4)
B. Lest We Think Our Sin Is in Any Way Profitable Before God (3:5-8)
1. For God Is A Just Judge (3:5-6)
a. The Argument (3:5)
b. The Verdict (3:6)
2. For God Will Judge People as Sinners (3:7-8)
a. The Argument (3:7-8a)
b. The Verdict (3:8b) | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 12 G. Contribution of Passage to Systematic Theology
Romans 3:1-8 contributes to our understanding of sin (hamartiology) and how
God will deal with it. We are not to think for one minute that even though o
ur sin demonstrates the infinite righteousness of our perfect God that we ar
e therefore excused in some way from judgment or have thus been given licens
e to sin. Paul reserves strong language for those who follow this train of r
easoning. No matter how much glory God receives as a result of our sin, sin
will always be punished and God will always remain just.
We need to briefly spell out, however, a more integrated view of the Pauline
concept of judgment. First, the deciding factor in judgment concerning our
eternal destiny is our relationship to Christ and his saving work. If we hav
e trusted in him (3:21-26) we are saved and saved eternally (Rom 8:38-39). G
od will, however, discipline us for our sin in the here and now, and we will
lose reward at the final judgment (1 Cor 11:30; cf. Heb 12:1-11).
If, on the other hand, we have not trusted in Christ and have no personal re
lationship with him, we will be judged for our sin with eternal consequences
(2 Thess 1:8-9; cf. John 5:28-29). Hell is a reality which eternally demons
trates God's holy justice and which is created for those who just can't stom
ach having to think about God (so C. S. Lewis; cf. Rom 1:18-20).
H. Contribution of Passage to Discipleship and Church Mission
In our churches we need to ensure that we are not excusing sin under the pre
tense of grace. This does not entail the idea of “running around” looking
for others’ sin, but it does mean staying close to the Lord and keeping a c
lean slate before him, both in the church and in the world (Ephesians 5:3; 1
Peter 3:15-16)! It also entails the idea of leaders carrying out church dis
cipline in a loving and impartial way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
35 R. Kent Hughes, 1001 Great Stories and Quotes (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1998
), 239-40. | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 13 up
v
Ab
choir
Prove
Happy
prec
co
【在 R*o 的大作中提到】
: Study By: Greg Herrick
: A. Introduction
: “Charles Darwin died in April 1882. He wished to be buried in his beloved v
: illage, but the sentiment of educated men demanded a place in Westminster Ab
: bey beside Isaac Newton. As his coffin entered the vast building, the choir
: sang an anthem composed for the occasion. It’s text, from the book of Prove
: rbs, may stand as the most fitting testimony to Darwin’s greatness: ‘Happy
: is the man that findeth wisdom, and getteth understanding. She is more prec
: ious than rubies, and all the things that thou canst desire are not to be co
: mpared to her.’”
|
|
