ROM 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

A good question indeed, and we must remember that this question was written two thousand years ago. So, what advantage did the Jew have? And what profit was there of circumcision?

Was there ever any profit to be gained by being circumcised?

That depends on what is meant by "profit"

In the overall view of things, it is evident that being physically circumcised did not make the person of a Jew any better or more acceptable in God's sight, and Paul is not suggesting that this is the case. In other places he makes this quite clear.

He links the words "profit" and "advantage" together, so he is evidently asking what advantage or profit was there in being part of the group known as the circumcision, Judaism. What profit was there in being a descendant of Abraham, with whom the ordinance of circumcision began?

So what advantage did the Jew have?

ROM 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

I would say that this was a very good advantage, indeed what better advantage can a man ask for?

This word "oracles" is a translation from the word "logion" and it means "statements", "sayings" "utterances" or "declarations". It would be very incorrect, if we here presumed that Paul was simply referring to "the law" as we presently understand it to be. If he had meant "law" he would have said "law". He was not shy about using the word "law", but he chose not to. He chose to use the word "oracles" instead. The law may well have been a part of the statements or sayings of God, but it was not the whole of them. God made many utterances and declarations apart from those which are generally referred to as "law".

The fact that the utterances, declarations and statements of God were committed unto them, the Jews was an enormous privilege. This privilege was an enormous advantage to them, and not only to the particular individuals to whom the declarations were given, but also to the rest of the group here classified as "the circumcision" to whom those mouthpieces of God (the prophets) who spoke these utterances were affiliated.

But there is much more to Paul's meaning than this.

Firstly, this chapter of Romans is the precursor to the next one. And in the next chapter he is going to thoroughly and utterly wipe the floor with them, and bring them head to head with their own incorrect and illogical presumptions concerning Abraham. So he is here beginning to pave the way.

The word "committed" here, from "unto them were committed the oracles of God, is exactly the same word which is, throughout the rest of these two chapters translated "faith".

Mark this fact well! It might not seem to be important now, but it will become so, as I continue. His choice of words is deliberate and meaningful.

Secondly, the institute of circumcision began with Abraham, and as he is going to go into great detail regarding Abraham in the fourth chapter, again we must note that his choice of words is important and relevant.

Circumcision began with Abraham, and so did the statements and declarations of God concerning the promises of what God would bring to pass though his lineage, (his seed). Many statements and declarations had been made by God, concerning Abraham.

All those who came under the classification "circumcision" the descendants of Abraham were human beings just like any other human being. There was NOTHING inherently good or more righteous about their nature than there was about the nature of any other human being.

Then why were they chosen to be circumcised and the ones who received the statements and declarations of God?

Firstly, and obviously because God chose to do it this way. Secondly, because God was establishing grace before law. He was establishing a blessing before a curse.

It was, in the great timeless plan of God, His intention, some four hundred years later to burden these descendants of Abraham by causing them to be the receivers of the law. This would prove to be a great burden, and a curse indeed. And before they were thus cursed, God deemed it necessary to establish a covenant with them, a covenant which had a perpetual reminder (circumcision) attached to it. By this means, they should have been able to look back to their father Abraham and understand that he had been justified by God before the law was given.

This covenant made with Abraham was so important, that in the case of Moses, when he was on his way back to Egypt to be the tool through which God presented Abraham's descendants with the curse of the law, an angel met him in the way and sought to kill him because he had not carried out this act of circumcision on his own son.

The act of circumcision was in itself quite worthless, but that which it represented wasn't. It was something which the children of Abraham could always look back to and ponder over, and hopefully understand the covenant that God had made with Abraham hundreds of years before the law had been given.

Why God chose to do things in this way is another study which takes us two thousand years further back to Adam, but what happened before the institution of circumcision (Judaism) is a different subject altogether.

Paul's discussion at this moment is with the profit gained by being one of the group to whom the statements and sayings of God were committed

ROM 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Here, straight away, in his usual manner, he does not waste any time in getting down to the matter in hand. I think that perhaps the writing of letters was an expensive matter in Paul's day, for his usual method of recording them is to make them blunt and to the point. Unfortunately, because of this same trait, he leaves many things unsaid, which is why we can have such a problem with them today.

And this, his first statement is an extremely intriguing one. Unfortunately, the bulk of Christian writers and teachers have either totally misunderstood it, and interpreted it incorrectly, or they have utterly failed to even consider the implications of it.

It is a statement which tackles the question of the unbelief of man concerning the statements and declarations of God.

And the question that he asks is quite simple - For what if some did not believe the statements or declarations of God? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Now, the bulk of Christian teachers today would answer this question with a resounding "YES".

The majority of Christian teacher do teach that the faith/faithfulness of God towards man is the core and foundation from which ALL blessings to man originate, but they are also quick to establish and teach that for man to be a partaker of certain of those benefits which God offers we must believe what God says, and if we do not believe then we cannot be a partaker of the benefits.

Paul however does not agree with them, for he answers his own question with a resounding "NO" - "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar".

So the question and answer from Paul concerning man's belief in the "declarations and statements" of God is -

ROM 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid!

The common Christian teaching - that we must believe in order make God's faithfulness to be of effect - is often presented today in such teaching as - one must believe in order to be saved, have eternal life, be redeemed, reconciled to God etc. Paul is denying that this teaching is correct.

Some of this confusion may come about because of the different meanings which many Christians place upon these words.

If it is understood that by belief in this life we know that we are saved, and can taste of the good things to come, we can be relieved of a guilt ridden conscience, etc, then I have no argument. For this is quite evidently so. In order to be set free from the fear, guilt and bondage that the law instills within us, it is quite evident that we do need to believe, for it is only by believing that Christ has died for sin that we can be set free from the fear of having to die for our own sin (if fear of having to die for our own sin is something that worries us). But in the broader sense, as it is commonly presented to us by many within Christianity - that only those who believe are acceptable unto God, for it is by our belief that we activate what God has promised, and it is only those who believe that are reconciled to God, a most resounding NO!

The simple truth of the matter is that -

"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;" 2 Cor. 5:19

And this reconciliation has taken place whether a man believes it or not.

As Paul says -

ROM 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid!

Paul's reasoning and logic is quite simple really. Consider this analogy. Science has sent men into space, taken pictures of the earth, studied how the earth revolves around the sun in its orbit etc. And we know for a fact that roughly speaking the world that we live on is spherical in shape. Now, if a man should fail to believe this, and say "No, I do not accept neither do I believe that the world is a sphere. I believe it is flat like a pancake." Will the fact that he believes it to be flat, make it so in reality? The answer is - no! You can believe that the moon is made out of green cheese if you want, but the fact that you believe it will not make it so!

Or, let us say that a man sets out to trek across the Sahara desert on foot with only a one gallon container of water, and he accomplishes his task. And on returning two months later, a colleague says "I do not believe that you did it. I just do not believe it." Does the fact that his colleague does not and will not believe it, mean that he did not accomplish it? No! Not at all. Whether his colleague believes it or not will not and cannot detract from the fact that he did accomplish it.

Just so, one man may believe the statements and declarations of God and another may not, but the unbelief of the person who does not believe will not and cannot make the faithfulness of God to be ineffective.

To look at this in another way, we can say that Christ has died for sin, and by believing this, one man may, in this life gain much comfort from the fact. Another man may not believe it and not gain any comfort from the fact. But whether a man believes or does not will not detract from the fact that Christ did die for sin.

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their sins to them. It has been done, and no amount of belief or unbelief can alter the fact that it was accomplished.

And those things which God has accomplished have been accomplished, whether we believe that they have been accomplished or not. Our unbelief cannot and will not detract from what has been accomplished.

Far too many Christians are in the self-righteous habit of referring to non believers as the "unsaved", meaning that they have not been reconciled unto God and will be forever condemned to hell because they do not believe. It is sheer and utter nonsense. Our belief or unbelief cannot and will not change what has happened or has been accomplished by God. And if God was truly in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself - not imputing their sins unto them, then no matter what any man, be they Jew, Christian, academic or peasant may say, the plain fact of the matter is that the words "not imputing their sins to them" still stand.

If some do not believe, their unbelief WILL NOT make the faithfulness of God to be without effect.

As I have been want to say on several occasions in the past concerning the gospel of sins paid for, and those who neither accept nor believe that God can be so gracious, especially those of the hell fire and damnation club within Christianity. They can breath Hell fire and damnation all the day long. They can quote the scriptures until they grow dizzy. They can cut down every tree upon the planet earth to make the paper to publish their books which teach the opposite and teach that all except believers in Christ are damned to hell. They can fight and bite, they can kick and scream, they can gnash on their teeth until they have worn them all away and they have got nothing left but gums to grind on. They can bang on their pulpits till they have broken all of their fingers, threatening damnation and condemnation upon all men. They can preach and declare that unless we are believe we will not enter the kingdom of God until they run out of breath. They can ridicule, argue against, persecute, condemn, and even kill every soul on the planet earth who teaches the opposite, and they can even blow the earth itself into a trillion fragments of dust. But one thing they cannot do. They cannot make the faith of God to be without effect. as Paul himself says in this place - For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid."

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. MAT 11:28-29.

And concerning those who labour and are heavy laden who do not "come unto Him" through unbelief, it is evident that they will struggle to find the rest which is offered unto their souls, but will still labour and be heavy laden. But that is about all that can be said on the subject, for their unbelief will still not make the faithfulness of God to be without effect.

And concerning the faith/faithfulness of God, (that which He committed) who sent His only begotten Son to this earth to die for our sins, and raised Him again from the dead as a witness that His sacrifice for sin was acceptable, this will not be made without effect whether we believe it or not. It was done! And no man can undo it!

And to add even further weight to his statement, Paul also adds the words "yea, let God be true, but every man a liar."

This reasoning of Paul, does however cause a very serious question to arise, as I am sure that it will have already have arisen in the minds of many of my readers.

If our unbelief cannot make the faithfulness of God and what He has accomplished to be without effect, does this mean that we need not believe? What profit is there to be gained from believing? and need we believe at all?

These questions are complex, and the answers are even more so. And to do justice to the subject I will divide it into several separate components.

Firstly. I will say as a total covering statement - NO, it is evident that as far as our being reconciled to God is concerned, we do not need to believe. However, this does not work the same way when we are discussing the reconciling of God to ourselves. Great benefits are to be had from believing, but belief is not an essential ingredient in the being reconciled to God stakes. It is, however an essential in the reconciling of God to ourselves stakes.

And as many will oppose what I say and still insist that belief is necessary for without it we cannot be reconciled unto God, I will also say that it is not really a question of whether we ought or ought not believe. The point is - no man does believe.

What do I mean by this? I mean exactly the same as Paul, who has already told us - "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar". Because, by taking his argument one step further, he is not only discussing the unbelief of those who did not believe, but the belief of those who did. And his general classification of all men is that they are liars - not true, or in this case - unbelievers.

As Paul chose to use these particular words at this point and in this context, it is quite clear that he is happy to class ALL people in the category of "unbelief", or a liar, (untrue) in the believing stakes.

These words "but every man a liar." include you, if you belong to mankind.

Now you may well find these words difficult to accept if you imagine that you are such a person who above all things does believe, and that with all of your heart. But according to Paul the real truth of the matter is, that - you don't. In the believing stakes you are not true - a liar.

To show this a little more clearly, perhaps I might be so bold as to put all who are so quick to say that they do believe, and that with all of their heart, and above all things, to the test.

Have you not read the words of Jesus where He says - "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matt. 17:20.

Yes, of course you have.

Then, forgive me for being so blatantly practical, but why don't you try it? If you so strongly object to being classified as an unbeliever and a liar, why do you not prove yourself to be otherwise.

I'll tell you what, far be it from me to ask for such an enormous miracle that you should move a mountain the size of Everest. No, I wouldn't be so demanding. Nor would I be so outrageous to suggest that by your faith you should even move a small hill. I wouldn't even suggest that you move a boulder, nor even a piece of rock that would fit in your hand. I'll settle for a grain of sand. Just one tiny grain of sand that even a slight breeze could move without any faith. Let us put one in front of you on the table and watch how your faith can irritate it so much that it should tremble and move just three feet so that it falls over the edge. Remember, if you had faith as a grain of mustard seed you could move a mountain, so how much faith to move a grain of sand?

And for those who would quickly reply - but Jesus was not referring to a physical mountain here, but a Spiritual one, I would in turn reply -

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Did you hear what Jesus said - "and NOTHING shall be impossible unto you."

Do you think that you truly do have faith? Then far be it from me to suggest that you should do like Jesus and raise Lazarus from the dead. Oh no, nothing as big as a man, nor even a monkey, nor a dog or a cat; not even a mouse or an earwig. How about an ant. I will kill an ant and you can show me how much faith you have got by causing it to live again.

Let us see an example of this faith which you are so boastful of having.

Christ could have done it. He did raise the dead. Why can't you? Perhaps because you are not as believing as you think that you are?

Or again -

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;" They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." MAR 16:17 -18

Do you believe? Try not to fob me off by claiming that you speak in tongues and therefore you are evidently a believer, for there is a lot more to this text than making gibbering noises that sound like you are on magic mushrooms.

I will tell you what we will do. I will take you on to the cancer ward of the local hospital and you can prove your belief by curing them all. Or better still, I will prepare a nice drink of hemlock and cyanide with a twist of lemon and mercury for you, and you can drink it to show how it will not hurt them that believe.

Do you fancy a go? I think not.

You see, it is one thing to imagine that we have such an enormous belief, and maybe even boast to others concerning how believing we are, but when all things are judged and put to the acid test, we should begin to realize that we are not quite so believing as we thought we were.

And again, there are many who, desperate to defend themselves will still insist that they are not to be classed as "unbelieving" but "believing" will reply that all of these things are to be understood spiritually as well, and not to be taken literally. And also that belief is a specific thing in that we must believe in Christ.

Fair enough, I reply. I do not mind putting this to the test also.

Have you ever said or thought, or are you in the habit of saying or thinking that you are saved and others are lost?

Really? Do you then not believe that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their sins to them? Note - NOT IMPUTING THEIR SINS TO THEM! Do you believe that God accomplished this through Christ? Or do you think that there are still some in the world unto whom God does still impute their sin?

Do you deny Christ? Do you think and teach that His mission failed? Do you think that as far as some people are concerned, they are still outside of the scope of God's grace?

For I say, that if you deny that Christ accomplished his work in reconciling the world unto God, and that God still charges any man with his sin then you are not as believing in Christ as perhaps you thought you were.

You believe that you are reconciled to God? You believe that God does not charge you with your sin? That's very Christian of you. And what of all other men, I ask. Does your belief in the faithfulness and promises of God extend to them also? No? Then you do deny that Christ was successful in bringing to pass that which God committed. You evidently believe that Christ failed in His mission to reconcile the world unto God.

Truly did Isaiah say - Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

Ahah, some will say. We know this teaching. It is commonly called Universalism. You know nothing, I reply. You understand nothing of the enormity of God's grace or of the plan of God concerning the salvation of man. You make your great boast of believing when you do not even understand what the words - to believe - mean.

Justified by your faith, are you?

Then tell me, how can this be?

How can you claim to be justified by your faith (a thing which so many place all of their trust in) when faith is a work of the law, and by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified before him?

You do not understand that having faith is a work of the law? Really?

Do you not understand that faith in God is commanded in the first commandment - Thou shalt have no other Gods before me? If these words do not include the command that we should have faith in God only, I would like to know what they do command us.

Have you never read the words of Jesus who certainly understood that faith was a work of the law, a fact that He brought to the attention of the scribes and Pharisees, when he said - "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. ( Matt. 23:23).

Perhaps you have never read the words of Paul, who also knew that faith was a work of the law, a fact which he makes quite clear when he is in the process of removing all excuses for boasting from those to whom he was writing in a few verses time, where he writes - "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith." (Rom 3:27)

It is this same Paul, who in the very next verse tells us - "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (verse 28)

So tell me, how are we to understand that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, when faith is itself a work of the law, indeed not just a work, but one of the more weighty matters of law, as Jesus said?

Everybody jumps up and down, stamping their feet, frothing at the mouth, declaring that we cannot be justified by our works of the law, but that it is by our faith alone that we are justified. And when I tell them that they are talking insane gibberish, because faith itself is one of the most major works of the law, they look at me as though I am the crazy!

And again, we can look at this matter concerning whether we are to be classed as believers or unbelievers in another way. For after telling us - "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid. In the very next verse, Paul states -

"unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

Did you hear that? The unbelief of those who do not believe will not make the faithfulness of God to be ineffective, because according to Paul, there is no difference between the "all" and those who believe, because there is no difference between the two categories of people.

Why is there no difference between the two categories of people?

ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So here again we can look at whether we should be classed as a believer or an unbeliever, and how any belief that we may have at all now make us any different from the "all" who do not believe.

Is there a difference? Not according to Paul, No, for he tells us quite plainly that the faithfulness of God is "unto all, and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

Why is there no difference? He has already told us that there is no difference, because the unbelief of those who do not believe will not and cannot make the faithfulness of God to be without effect. But just to convince those of my readers who are still persuaded that they, as professed believers, are in a different category to the "all", or the rest of mankind, I ask -

Did you always believe?

No?

And if you did not always believe, then there is no difference between you who now "do" believe, and the "all" who don't believe. Because you were once one of them.

You cannot say - I believe now, so the belief that I have now cancels out the fact that I did not believe before, because it doesn't!

The leopard cannot change his spots. A man who commits a murder at the age of twenty, no matter how much he repents of his deed is still a murderer at the age of sixty. He cannot undo what he did. He earned himself the title "murderer" at the moment he committed the act.

Just so, any belief that we may now have cannot counter the unbelief which we had then. We earned ourselves the title "unbeliever" when we did not believe. The fact that we may now believe to some degree will not and cannot undo the fact that we were unbelievers.

This is why there is no difference between the "all" who do not believe and those that do, because "all" are in the category "unbelievers", as Paul says elsewhere, in the eleventh chapter -

ROM 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The common idea that a man who once did not believe, but now does, and by his now doing so cancels out the fact that he once didn't, is utter nonsense. A good work cannot pay for a sin.

There is a reason why you do not believe as you ought, neither have you ever done. There is a reason why our belief or unbelief cannot make the faithfulness of God to be ineffective. Because God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.

You see. You can't believe as you ought to believe because God won't allow it to happen. He has concluded you, along with everybody else as an unbeliever.

Why?

Perhaps so that you might learn - "My grace is sufficient for thee"

Perhaps because if one single human being was ever allowed to believe fully and perfectly, then by that belief it would be proven that it is possible for man to believe perfectly, and by that factor, the rest of humanity who do not believe perfectly would be condemned. So to make sure that humanity is not condemned - "God has concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."

We are dealing very much here with the grace of God and His merciful handling of mankind.

Let's enter the world of supposition, and say that it was by our belief that we were reconciled to God. The question is - how many would not be reconciled? And again, how about you?

If your reconciliation to God and your salvation truly depended on whether you believed or not, how would you ever know whether you believed strongly enough or not to satisfy God? How could you ever have any confidence towards God and rest from your labours and fretting and worrying concerning your acceptability before Him if your acceptance relied upon the belief within you? You would always be in doubt whether you had belief or faith enough to satisfy Him. You would be in exactly the same situation as the person who frets and worries whether he has done enough works to satisfy God, for now you would worry whether you belief was strong enough or whether you did truly believe at all.

But above and beyond all, the reason why God will not allow you to believe as you ought is because it was not according to His plan that any man should believe as they ought. For He, God, in His wisdom and mercy decided that One person and One person only would ever believe as a man ought - His Son Jesus Christ - and He did that so that His son's belief would be enough to cover the unbelief of ALL men.

So, whilst on the one hand - there is profit in this life to be gained from believing, no matter how imperfect that belief. For by our belief we are strengthened in the inner man, we have a confidence towards God. Our lives are changed as our belief grows stronger and our confidence becomes greater. Some through faith have stopped the mouths of lions and escaped perils and dangers. So there is a profit to be gained from believing.

But there is NO necessity of believing to the end that we are not reconciled to God if we do not.

God Forbid, for to say such a thing would be to make the faith of God without effect. And we have already been told that even though we do not believe, it will not and cannot make the faith of God to be without effect.

The error that the bulk of Christianity is presently persuaded by is that to be redeemed one must believe in a specific number of factors, first and foremost - in Christ the Saviour.

This is not the case. To gain release from a conscience which is raw, sore and tender, one must believe that sin has been paid for, admittedly. But to be redeemed or reconciled to God - a most resounding NO.

Man has been reconciled to God. Man has been redeemed. They have been bought with a price, the price that Christ paid. So think not to presume to declare any man is damned to the eternal sufferings of hell for their unbelief.

There are quite naturally plenty of texts which Christianity uses and draws from in an attempt to prove the exclusivity that only those who believe can be or are reconciled to God. I cannot even attempt to look at each and every individual text which is used in this way now, but I say this - if you believe that the meaning of these texts is saying that to be saved (inherit eternal life) one must believe in Christ then either you are reading it incorrectly or the writer concerned did not understand what they were talking about.

The grace of god will not be limited by the legalism or self-righteousness of any man. Indeed, to suggest that one must believe in Christ to be saved would be to utterly oppose all that Paul has said on this subject so far. But there is still an even greater reason why it should not and cannot be so.

What reason? The very reason that Paul makes clear in the next statement that he makes as a codicil to his previous words -

"That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

If I have heard this text quoted once, then I must have heard it a hundred times. And on every occasion it has been misquoted and misrepresented.

This statement is NOT talking about us, "man" being justified in our sayings, or "man" overcoming when he is judged. It is talking about God being justified in His sayings, and God overcoming when He is judged.

What! some will exclaim. What on earth are you talking about - "when God is judged"? Who can, or is capable of judging God.

Man is, I reply. Man continually judges God.

What is this nonsense? Some will reply. You are mad. Which man has the right to judge God. Where is this man who so dares to judge God.

Why, it is you, I reply. You are the man who dares to judge God. Do you not recognize the perfect description of yourself? Every man who ever declares or has ever declared that some men are saved to eternal glory because they believe, and others are damned to eternal destruction because they do not believe, is judging God.

There are many men who boastfully and self-righteously declare - well I know that I am safe and secure because I believe in Christ, but all of those Jews, Muslims and Hindu's, boy, aren't they in for a shock because they are all damned to hell. And ALL who say or teach such things are guilty of judging God.

But God will overcome your vain boasting and self-righteousness when he is so judged.

But why should the most common teaching of Christianity be judging God?

Because by means of their preaching under the covering of what they call "the sovereignty of God", it is also admitted by them that no man can believe or do anything of himself. It is also admitted by them that they could not themselves believe if God had not opened their eyes and given them the strength to do so.

Thus they judge and accuse God of not giving sight to some, and of giving sight to others, of giving some the ability to believe, and of denying it to others, and as they also teach that it is through belief that we are made acceptable unto God, they judge God of causing those to whom He has not given sight to be "not acceptable". Indeed, they go even further, and declare that all who are not given the ability to believe by God are damned to eternal destruction, the agonies of hell, etc.

What is this if it is not judging God?

But, you see, no matter how much you judge God in this matter, you can be assured that God will overcome you and be justified -

"That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

For all those whom you declare to be damned to eternal destruction because of their unbelief are not damned to eternal destruction at all.

Why not?

Because it is not by our belief that we are reconciled to God, but by the fact that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning their sins to them. This is how God will be justified in His sayings, and overcome you when you so incorrectly judge Him.

It is not by the lack of belief in some, or all, that they are to be damned to eternal destruction, for they have already been reconciled to God through Christ. Thus, by the grace and mercy of God to ALL mankind, he has not made our acceptance before Him to rely upon our belief.

But all who do say that He has made our acceptance before Him to rely upon our belief are judging God. A judgement which he has and will overcome. For Paul here declares that our belief is not required to make the faith of God to be effective. In short, our acceptance before Him does not rely upon anything done by us or within us.

What if some do not believe today? Can their unbelief make the faithfulness of God to be without effect or ineffective? No! The faithfulness of God is sure and steadfast. He committed the promise to Abraham that through his lineage (Christ) all the nations of the earth would be blessed. He sent Christ to die for sin and raised Him again for our justification. This work was done, and whether we believe it or not cannot change the fact that it has been done. You may believe that the world is flat, but your belief will not make it so. Just so, you may not believe that Christ died for your every sin, nor that He fulfilled the law by so doing and removed the condemnation of sin from you, but it will not make any difference to the fact that He did it. As Paul so correctly points out -

"let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

So why shall our unbelief not make the faithfulness of God ineffective?

First, for the reasons that I have just said - our belief or disbelief will not and cannot alter the facts of what have been accomplished.

Second. It was done so that God might be justified in His sayings, and so that He might overcome when He is accused and judged by men.

If it is God who gives us the power to believe, and it is critical to our being made right with God that we must believe, and those who do not believe are lost, then all who are lost would have the ability to turn around to God and accuse Him of not giving them the strength or power to believe.

So, in order to be justified in His sayings, and in order to overcome when He is judged, he has concluded all in unbelief.

To sum these few verses up - if EVERY man is a liar and false, and categorised in "unbelief" it is obvious that if the activation of the promise of God's salvation for mankind relied on man's belief, then no man would be able to activate the promise, because if all men are liars then there are none who believe. Therefore the promise and faithfulness of God will not and cannot be made effective by the professed belief of any man, or ineffective by the unbelief of any man - "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid."

If our unbelief can or could cause the faith of God to be without effect, then the faith of God would not, and could not ever be effective, because ALL men are unbelievers.

The objections to this understanding that will be voiced by many Christians will be numerous. Many will become outraged by the suggestion that they do not believe, for above and beyond all things they rate themselves as a true believer indeed.

Paul, however would disagree with them. And if they contemplated, reasoned about, meditated upon and truly considered such things, they also would come to the same conclusion.

WE CANNOT make the faith of God or that which He has committed without effect! Belief or unbelief, works or no works, faithfulness or faithlessness, death or life, nothing can either activate or deactivate God's faithfulness. God's faithfulness is beyond us. It is built upon a solid foundation called Christ. And it is secure.

God's faithfulness is a promise which cannot be repealed. It is by grace and it is according to the plan of election by God, (and I DO NOT refer to that which is commonly portrayed as election, by the Calvinists) as Paul affirms with the words - "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth....Who shall separate us from the love of Christ...For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. 8:33-39

The matter is plain and simple. It is God that justifies us, and if it is God that Justifies us, then NOTHING shall separate us from Him.

It is obvious from the words of Paul that we have looked at, that God has concluded ALL men in unbelief. ALL men ARE unfaithful! ALL men ARE liars! The all encompassing description of man is - unrighteous. "There are none righteous, no, not one", as he makes quite clear a few verses later where he quotes David with the words -

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom 3:10-18

But, the next few verses of the text that we are looking at read -

"But if our unrighteousness commend the rightousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come? whose damnation is just."

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say?

He has up until this moment been talking about mans unbelief, and the unbelief of man not being able to make the faithfulness of God without effect. He now changes his usage of words slightly and relates the non belief of man with the word "unrighteousness" and the faithfulness of God with the words "righteousness of God".

This change of use of words is in preparation for the following verses which he is going to write regarding there being none righteous, and he is also preparing himself for the argument which he knows will be argued against him. Instead of waiting for his opponents to voice their argument and then having to combat it, he voices it for them.

The fact that he is here voicing his opponents argument is made notable by the words in the text -"I speak as a man".

He knew that there were many instances in the Old Testament Scriptures where God had caused judgement and immediate physical death to occur upon those who did not believe, or who did one thing or another in disobedience towards God.

He therefore asks, as he knew that his opponents would -

Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

In all of those instances in the past, when God judged both Israel and those who did not belong to Israel, and brought judgement and calamity upon them for their unrighteousness and unbelief, was God acting unrighteously?

God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

Firstly and foremost, this type of question only arises when people imagine that death or life on this planet, in the here and now, is what it is all about. They either do not see the greater picture or the plan of God from the very beginning, or they tend to ignore it and concentrate on the here and now.

And whenever we concentrate on the here and now, we blind ourselves to the much greater all encompassing picture of the plan of God.

For if we enter into the here and now, or in this case into the there and then, this same question could be asked concerning virtually everything that has taken place in the history of man. For instance -

If God is in complete control of the situation, was God acting unrighteously when He allowed Adam to fall from grace in the first place?

Or again, as Paul Himself quotes later on in this same epistle regarding Pharaoh, of whom it was written - for this cause have I raised thee up.

It is quite evident that much suffering was brought upon Adam and all humanity since then, because of Adam's fall from grace. And as God allowed it to happen, was God acting unrighteously? And with Pharaoh, who, along with his Egyptians, evidently also went through much suffering from ten plagues and eventual death in the drowning of the Red sea so that the greatness of God could be shown. Was this evidence of God acting unrighteously?

Not so, replies Paul, for how else could God judge the world.

It is probably the usage of the word "judge" here that cause many people to stumble and to misunderstand what Paul is saying. It should properly be understood to mean - how then could God conclude all under sin?

The question must always be asked is - did Adam lose his eternal salvation because he fell from grace? We are certainly not told that he did, not anywhere in the Bible. I would be therefore very content to here reply - the answer is no, he did not. And again, did Pharaoh lose his salvation because he did what he did. I would say that again, the answer is no. For there is no evidence to the contrary.

The experience of both Adam and Pharaoh was that they were being concluded under sin, so that the greater purpose of God to be worked out.

God allows many things to happen, and at times has a deliberate hand in their happening. And many of these things we find extremely hurtful and some would even call them immoral. In this they also judge God incorrectly.

I have heard some say things like - If God is a God of love, why does He allow such suffering now in places like the third world where children die daily for the lack of a cup of rice or some medicine. And I would answer - On the contrary why do you allow it? You sit in judgement of God for allowing it, and at the same time squander your wealth on luxuries and play things to amuse yourself. You hypocrite.

Lay not this at God's door but at your own. For when God created man he handed over to man the dominion of the earth for him to tend it and be responsible for it. It is you/we who are lacking in this matter, not God.

And regarding those things where God has evidently had a direct part to play in the suffering of man in this life, I would say that one thing is true above all others.

In order to teach man certain things there were some very hard lessons to be learned by some. You can tell a child not to place its finger in the fire a thousand times, but there is only one sure lesson - allow them to do it, for they will not do it a second time.

Just so, God worked His mysterious work in many different ways. The lessons to be learned were learned, often by hard experience, tragedy, and what we might consider to be cruelty.

God's plan as it worked itself out caused many people to be manipulated, destroyed, killed etc, and much suffering was and has been brought about. I have no real answer for those who insist that God is a cruel God for so doing. I would suggest that they are not viewing the picture correctly, but cannot offer any real answer, and will not attempt to do so.

Paul is saying that God did not act unrighteously in His so doing, and I would agree with Him now that I see more of the great plan of God. But I would be the first to admit that I might not always have done so.

In my own life God has either allowed or designed that I should go through some quite horrific experiences. They have not been pleasant experiences at all, but now, in retrospect I must admit that they were probably necessary experiences in the learning stakes, for I have learned much from them.

And Paul readily also uses himself as an example.

In the previous verses he has already concluded that all men are unbelievers, and all men are liars, and as it is evident that no man can believe unless God give them the power and ability to do so. He has told us that it is not because God is acting unrighteously by allowing this, but so that God, in the greater plan of things might conclude all under sin. And as this is the case he now refers right back to his own experience and says -

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Or

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also concluded as a sinner?

I believe that he is referring here quite specifically to the time when he did not believe in Christ at all, and during that time rained havoc and death upon those who did - the early Christians whom he persecuted with zeal. Let us not forget that it was this same Paul who was present at the martyrdom of Stephen, and consenting to it.

His argument is - that as belief/unbelief is in the direct control of God, and no man can believe unless God grant them to do so, then his own unbelief at the time when he did not believe was according to God's purpose, and his action of raining havoc down upon the Christians was also according to God's purpose. We might add here - just as it was in the case of pharaoh

This will of God, in keeping Paul in unbelief had caused much suffering to the early Christians, but in the long term had been part of the greater working out of the plan of God. Indeed, it had all been part of Paul's experience, and instrumental in his eventually being turned around to Paul being a preacher of the gospel which was eventually unto God's glory.

Nevertheless, he recognises that even though he was kept in the dark until the appointed time through God's will, and through his unbelief (lie), his actions were still sinful.

His argument is therefore - if he was doing the will of God, then why should he be judged a sinner or concluded in sin for doing it. But he knew that he was a sinner for doing it, and judged as such both by the law of God, himself, and other men. For this man Paul was in effect a murderer.

I would say that the simple answer to all of this, is to be summed up in the understanding - so that God can judge the world, all of the world, and conclude all under sin. All are concluded in and under sin so that He might have mercy upon all.

The arguments for and against have gone on for thousands of years, and shall continue for many more. And I cannot see any real answer to it all. I cannot offer any solace to those who do judge God as being immoral or cruel for certain actions.

But this is not really the argument that Paul is dealing with here. He side-tracks himself to present the argument that he knew would be argued against him, but he is still talking about the eternal security of man, and whether this is affected by unbelief or belief.

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come? whose damnation is just."

The way that the compilers of the text have put these verses together is atrocious.

They make it sound as if Paul was declaring that the damnation of those who said "let us do evil that good may come" was "just".

It is, of course a terrible error of compilation. The verse should read -

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come?

He then asks a question -

"Whose damnation is just."?

It would have been helpful if the compilers had introduced a word here as they were in the habit of doing in so many other places to help us understand it better, as in -

Therefore, whose damnation is just?

That is - if any are damned by their unbelief or unbelief, how can their damnation be just, or righteous?

Well how can it?

If God judges any person to be a sinner, and because of their unbelief damns them, then how can God do it, and remain just or righteous, when it is He God who is in control of whether they believe or not.

Or again - if we claim ourselves to be something special and forgiven by God because we believe, and we claim others to be damned because they do not, then what gives us the priority over them?

And this is the question that he now expands upon -

ROM 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

And immediately quotes from David to show that all men are unrighteous, and gives us a pretty good description of just what all men are -

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom 3:10-18

This is a pretty good description of man, and if you are man, then this is what you are like.

And to highlight the pertinent facts of this description and to tie them in with what Paul has previously said regarding the unrighteousness of man and man's unbelief we have the words -

There is none righteous, no, not one.
There is none that understandeth.
There is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way.
They are together become unprofitable.
There is none that doeth good, no, not one.

And in particular in the unbelieving stakes -

Their throat is an open sepulchre.
With their tongues they have used deceit.
The poison of asps is under their lips.
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood.
Destruction and misery are in their ways.
And the way of peace have they not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Any man who declares that another is not justified before God, or not reconciled to God because of their unbelief is in this category.

Their throat is indeed an open grave, by which they teach. preach and speak death, condemnation and damnation to others.

With their tongues they have used deceit, for it is out of their own mouths that they deceive men of the truth that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and in its place they preach and teach works, fear, and damnation.

The poison of asps is indeed under their lips, for the serpent, the father of all lies and his poison is still coming from their lips, they also being liars, as all men are.

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

It is indeed. For any man who declares that another must DO anything towards their acceptance before God has a mouth which is full of bitterness and cursing. They rain bitterness down upon all who hear them, and curse them with the curse of the law.

By teaching that a man must believe in Christ in order to be reconciled to God or accepted by Him, they condemn the world, and set up salvation by works of the law.

Their feet are swift to shed blood. Indeed so, for they hurry along, straining at the bit, just so anxious and overtaken with zeal to preach condemnation to all who think not as they do. They turn the gospel of Christ into a gory blood bath, breathing hell fire and damnation to every soul that comes within spitting distance. Without having understanding in these things they preach not the gospel, but curses and bitterness.

Destruction and misery are in their ways, because that is all that their mouths can preach to others - destruction and misery.

And the way of peace have they not known. Evidently not.

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Again, evidently not. For if they saw themselves in their true light, and realized how much they lacked in the very things that they condemn others for, they would also be brought down into the same depths of fear that they drag others into it. But they do not. As Luther so correctly said of them, they are stocks and stones. They are lumps of wood, and pieces of stone, who, being without conscience and feeling have no ability to release the conscience of others.

And I doubt that they will even understand a word that I say.

ROM 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Here then is the true use of the law. Whatever other uses man may ascribe to it, this is the true use.

Whatever the law says and all that it says is said to all who are under it, so that their vain foolish self-righteous mouths may be silenced, and all the world may become guilty before God.

I could go on here and show instance after instance how this works and should come about, but if I did, I would probably detract from the matter in hand, which is still concentrating on the belief/unbelief factor of man.

And to all who insist that it is by belief that we are reconciled to God, and that those who do not believe are eternally damned, I again say - then you eternally damn yourself, for you do not believe as you ought.

You can boast about how much you believe until the cows come home. Your words are vain and empty and nothing but lies. You do not believe neither do you have faith. You are unbelieving and faithless. If we could liken the requirement of belief/faith to be equal to the sum of one thousand pounds, you make a boast because you have a pennies worth, but consider not the lack of the nine hundred and ninety nine pounds ninety nine pence worth which you do not have.

Some great and boastful things are spoken by men regarding their own faith or belief and how they are saved from eternal damnation because of it. If they were not so hurtful to others they would be a joke and a comedy of errors.

When challenged to prove their belief/faith by drinking the cyanide cup or moving a grain of sand they decline. Yet still they insist on their perverse assertion that they have great belief and great faith.

I also have a great faith and belief in God. My belief in God is the driving force which continually drives me forward to understand Him and bring the knowledge of Him to others. But I also know that in the true and real believing/faithful stakes I am a pauper.

Having established what he has established, he now utters those wonderful words -

ROM 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Read it and weep, all who say that we must believe God or Christ in order to be justified. For faith/belief in and towards God is a work of the law, commanded in the first commandment, but by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.

You cannot be justified by the faith or belief of which you boast, for faith and belief in God is a work of the law, commanded by the law, by which no man will ever be justified in His sight. The law was not given so that we might claim that by doing it we can be justified in His sight, but to make all guilty, and to shut our mouths from such foolish things.

All who declare that man is justified by believing in Christ make the faithfulness of God to be without effect and make salvation to rely upon a work of the law done in them or by them. They make a mockery of Christ's death for sin. They make a mockery of the fact that God as in Christ, not imputing the sins of the world to them. They are so anxious to set themselves apart and above others as something special because of their belief, that they preach condemnation to all who do not believe, not understanding that by so doing the establish law keeping as a requirement to make the faith of God effective and so preach salvation by works.

"But now the righteousness of God"

The "Righteousness of God" and the unrighteousness of man, and examples of them is what Paul has been talking about for the last three chapters.

He has already associated the words The "Righteousness of God" with the faithfulness of God and the unrighteousness of man with man's unbelief.

This "Righteousness of God" is the same "righteousness of God" that was referred to by Paul in chapter 1:16 were we are told - "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first,and also to the Greek. For therein is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD revealed from faith to faith: as it is written the just shall live by faith."

We should not here presume that in this statement Paul is saying that the righteousness of God is the power of God to salvation, ONLY to those who believe, and not to those who do not believe, but the "believing" bit should be understood in the context of the "I am not ashamed" bit, as in - I believe that the gospel is the power of God to salvation, therefore I am not ashamed (Please see the document on chapter 1)

What is this "righteousness of God"?

In this instance it is to be understood that Paul is talking about the faithfulness of God, that which God committed.

It is this faithfulness of God by which we have been told in Romans chapter 1, is revealed in the gospel and it is revealed from faith to faith. We are told that the gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses it, for "therein (in the gospel) it is revealed.

In the Romans 3 text we are told that it is manifested without the law, but that it was witnessed by both the law and the prophets.

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets."

So, the subject of which we are talking - the righteousness of God, is now revealed to us, having, in the past, been witnessed by both the law and the prophets. Both the law and the prophets were until Christ. So now, after Christ, we have no more need of either the law or the prophets to show us the righteousness of God, because it has been put on open display.

The law was given to make all the world guilty before God, and the prophets were a means by which many of the statements and declarations of God were given to us to help us to understand the mystery of God which is now revealed in the gospel. For the law was a shadow of the good things to then come, which are now fulfilled in Christ. And the prophets prophesied regarding and concerning Christ. But the point is - "Now, through Christ, the righteousness of God is revealed."

So, what is this "Righteousness of God" of which Paul is speaking? Again, not forgetting that he has, only a few verses earlier changed his terminology from the words "the faith or faithfulness of God"

"Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

What does Paul mean?

He means - the righteousness of God as it is revealed in the gospel is the good news concerning what God through Christ has done for mankind in the reconciling of mankind to Himself. It is revealed to us in the gospel which was the working of God who was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. And it is described here and in other places as either the faith of God or "the faith of Jesus Christ."

To divide the faith of God, and that faith of Christ is a difficult one, for above and beyond all it was God who was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, etc. But nevertheless, to understand that there is a difference between the faith of God and the faith of Christ is essential, for while it is true that it was Christ the second person of the Godhead who was God in the flesh, who was faithful unto death, even the death of the cross. It was the Father who was faithful to His promise to raise Him again from the dead.

Above and beyond all, we are NOT talking about our faith here, but the faith of Christ! It is by the faith of God and his commitment (Christ) that the righteousness of God is revealed.

If we say that this "righteousness of God" is appropriated or revealed by our belief or faith, we are wrong on two separate counts.

1. WE are putting the cart before the horse. We are saying that God's righteousness is revealed by our belief. It isn't. God's righteousness is revealed to us and it is through this revelation that we believe. Our belief is based on having something to believe in, to wit - the righteousness of God as it is revealed in Christ. We don't believe and then have the righteousness of God revealed. The righteousness of God is revealed and then we believe.

2. If we say that the "righteousness of God" is appropriated or revealed by our belief or faith, we are making a difference between those who believe and those who do not believe. But there is no difference between those who believe and those who do not believe, for there are none who believe, all have come short of the glory of God, and God has concluded all in unbelief, etc.

Paul has already gone to great lengths to show that the righteousness of God is not made effective by our belief, neither is it made ineffective by our unbelief. And now, to drive the point home even further, he is going to repeat it all. For the righteousness which Paul is talking about is the righteousness of God "unto all and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference."

Some complain that my writings are repetitive. I take a leaf out of Paul's book, for when driving a point home it is often necessary to repeat it again and again.

He is going to great lengths here to drive his point home. He is repeating himself in order to make it very clear what he is saying. He is going to spend the whole of the next chapter - chapter four, tearing down the massive error upon which Judaism had built everything - the teaching that Abraham was justified when he believed God, and because he believed God. So all of this is pounding of these facts into our thinking is in preparation for what is to come later.

The words - "unto all and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference," should be looked at in exactly the same way that we looked at this same point earlier.

Our belief or unbelief is not the issue. The righteousness of God is unto ALL. The fact that it is upon them that believe does not mean that it is upon them because they believe. It means that they believe that it is upon them.

Paul is telling us that there is no difference between those who believe and those who don't as far as the thing that we are talking about - the righteousness of God (the faithfulness of God) is concerned.

He has already quite firmly smacked us over the head when he said - "For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written That thou might be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

God will be vindicated and justified by His sayings, for the unbelief of man will not make the faith of God to be without effect. Neither will the belief or faith of ANY man alter either his own state or the state of any other human being before God, as Paul says later on in Romans again - "For God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, that He might have mercy on all." Rom. 11:32.

Now he is going to smack us over the head again, by repeating his words -

"unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference."

If we say that it is because of our faith or belief that God justifies us we are making our justification reliant upon a work done by us, or within us! We would in fact be making our justification to be reliant upon a work of the law - the law of faith, which he is going to speak of later in the chapter in vs 27.

If we say that it is because of our belief that we are justified then we would be prescribing to the teaching that our good works can outweigh our bad works. We would be saying that our faith - a good work - can outweigh all the sins that we have committed. Our salvation would be reliant upon our works and not by the grace of God.

And he continues with an explanation of WHY there is no difference between those who do believe and those who don't -

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

This is the knuckle of his argument. There is no difference between one man and another. ALL HAVE SINNED. AND ALL HAVE COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD!

What does he mean?

In this context, he means that ALL have failed to comprehend and worship God in true faith. All are liars, as it is written - let God be true, and every man a liar. There is none who believe! There are none righteous, no not one. Bitterness and cursing is in their mouths, etc.

All have sinned. We were born in sin! We have ALL come short of the glory of God. So God has concluded us ALL in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all. And by doing this, He, God, will be justified in his sayings, and overcome when he is judged by man.

Neither man nor angel, nor devil will be able to accuse God of being unjust because he preferred one man's person above another, or gave respect to one man above another. He has concluded them all in unbelief that He might have mercy on all. This is another reason why you cannot be justified before God by your own faith or your own belief. Because God has concluded you in unbelief!

So, Paul's argument is quite solid. If we are talking about the righteousness of God and the justification of God, and have agreed that all men have sinned by unbelief, how can our belief or unbelief make any difference? Which is why he has told us that it doesn't in the previous verse with the words - "unto all and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference."

OUR GOOD WORKS CANNOT PAY FOR OUR SIN! Neither can any belief that we have now, undo the unbelief that we had before.

As I said before - If a man commits a murder when he is twenty and then devotes the rest of his days to saving lives, even if he then saves a million lives throughout the rest of his life, he cannot undo or pay for the murder which he committed on the grounds of those lives which he has saved.

Just so, even if we could believe now, and that perfectly, it still cannot make up for, or make of no effect the fact that we have not always believed. Our belief now cannot outweigh our disbelief then. Therefore belief or unbelief makes no difference to the matter in hand which is concerned with the righteousness of God.

The righteousness of God, the faithfulness of God will not and cannot be affected by either our belief or unbelief!

And this being a very important understanding, the question now arises - then, how is our justification before God to be attained by us?

The answer is simple. It isn't to be attained by us.

It has already been attained by God for us. And that for both those who do believe and those who don't!

Our justification before God is by grace. It is the gift of God. It was brought about because God was in Christ reconciling us unto Himself, not reckoning our sins to us! It was brought about by Christ dying for our sin and God raising him again for our justification.

And this is what Paul immediately continues to tell us with the words -

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Our justification is free!. Our justification is by grace!. Our justification is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus!

Our redemption is in Christ Jesus and we are justified not by our faith, nor because we believe. Justification is a free gift from God, given freely, and is therefore by His grace! Not of works, lest any man should boast. Not of our faith or our belief, lest any man should boast. It is of grace, and by the faith of Jesus Christ.

Why so?

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness"

Our redemption is in Christ Jesus and it is a gift from God, because God has set forth Jesus to be a propitiation.

How did God do it?

Through faith in his blood.

Why did God do it?

To declare his righteousness!

So, God has set forth Christ to be a propitiation, that we might have faith in his blood?

He has, but that is really a different argument altogether, and not really the point of Paul's meaning at all.

The question is - are we justified because we have faith in his blood? NO! To say such a thing would be to discount everything that Paul has just established and make our faith or our belief a necessary component of being justified.

So who had faith in Christ's blood?

God did!

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith by his blood, to declare his righteousness"

Who set forth Christ?

God did!

Why?

To be a propitiation.

How?

By faith by His blood.

Who had faith by Christ's blood?

God did. That is why He set Him forth to be a propitiation - to declare the Righteousness, the faith, the faithfulness, the commitment of God!

Why?

"for the remission of sin that is past."

Here is our next stumbling block, for there are many who leaping on to these words "of sin that is past" make it sound as if Christ only paid for sins that we commit in the past or some other such nonsense.

They build a whole house of cards, declaring that only certain sins were paid for, and they can only be forgiven if we ask forgiveness, and how we must repent and do this and that, and not commit sin wilfully etc, etc and make an utter and complete mockery of everything that God was doing in Christ, not charging us with our sins nor reckoning our sins to us.

They have built a religion on this sort of nonsense. But the whole house of cards is about to collapse if they are taking a blind bit of notice of what Paul is saying.

We are talking about the remission of ALL sin. For the remission of sin, its penalty and condemnation. These things are all things of the past, being witnessed by the verse - "who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification." ch 4:25 And it was accomplished through "the forebearance of God."

So, just in case we missed it the first time and didn't quite catch what he said, he repeats it for us with more force than before. He is a great one for repeating himself is this Paul. He knew just how men's mouths were so full of bitterness and pronouncing curses on their fellowmen, that they needed a sledgehammer over the head to get what he was saying to sink in. So he goes for it again.

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Phew!, the self-righteous Christians all over the world sigh with relief. See, I told you that God justifies those who believe in Jesus.

What is the matter with you? I reply. Are you just deaf or are you really and truly so stupid? Have you not listened to, nor understood a word that Paul has said? Has it truly just gone in one ear and out of the other without making any impression on the grey matter in between? He has been pounding and pounding away for the last twenty odd verses telling us exactly the opposite! How then can you now be satisfied that he is referring to any man who believes in Jesus when he has told us time and time again that we do not believe, and neither does our belief or unbelief count because it will not make the faithfulness of God to be without effect?

He does NOT say - "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of us who believe in Jesus" but the justifier of HIM which believeth in Jesus.

All of the references to "his" "he" and "him" are still referring to God, not to man

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus

We are still talking about God's righteousness, and the justification of God here. All of the emphasis is still upon God and His righteousness. "To declare, I say, at this time HIS righteousness: that HE might be just,"

The following words - "and the justifier of HIM which believeth in Jesus," are still talking about the justification of God - the only ONE who does or ever did believe in Jesus!

It is far better understood to mean

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of himself by the faith of Jesus."

The reason why the text does not read this way is because the translators chose to make it read differently.

To begin with the word "in" does not exist in the original text at all!

And it should read -

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth Jesus."

The word "believeth" is the word "pistis", which on every other occasion in this chapters is translated "faith". "pistis Jesoous" being interpreted "faith of Jesus".

Exactly the same words in the original Greek, which are here interpreted as "believeth in Jesus," are, only 4 verses earlier interpreted "faith of Jesus." - "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ." Rom. 3:22

So what happens if we follow the same rule and interpret these words "pistis Jesoous" also as "faith of Jesus"? We encounter a slight problem because of the word "which" that occurs before the words that we are looking at. For then our text would read "Which faith of Jesus.

The word "which" is the word "ek". So, why did the interpreters choose to interpret the word "ek" as "which"?

Simple! Because they had already included the words "which is" in verse 22 where they never existed in the first place!

They rendered that text - "by faith of Jesus" to - "which is by faith of Jesus."

And having included the words "which is" for no reason in the first place other than to try and make us believe that our justification is reliant upon our belief or faith, they then had the problem when a similar text occured 4 verses later, so they interpreted it as "which" as well to get them out of their dilemma.

The truth of the matter is a lot more simple. The word "ek" which they interpret as "which" occurs on at least three other occasions in the surrounding verses, and on all occasions it is rendered "by". As in -"Therefore BY the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight," Rom. 3:20."which shall justify the circumcision BY faith." Rom. 3:30."If Abraham were justified BY works..." Rom. 4:2.

All of these words "by" are translated from the word "ek". Indeed "by" is the only translation of the word "ek" in this chapter apart from this one particular occasion when they chose to translate it as "which.", in fact, there is no difference between this text and the previous text by Paul, and it should read - "by faith of Jesus, the whole verse now reading -

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him by the faith of Jesus."

Or to be even clearer -

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of himself by the faith of Jesus."

It might be argued by some that it is not their fault that they misunderstood the meaning if the translators misled them.

But surely it must stand to reason that Paul is not going to spend twenty verses telling us that we are unrighteous, liars, faithless men, who cannot make the faith of God without effect by our unbelief, so that he can now argue against himself by telling us that those who believe are justified. Surely this is simple common sense?

He has been talking about the righteousness of God from the very beginning, not the righteousness of man. The only thing that he has said concerning man's righteousness is the sheer and utter lack of it!

We are talking about HIS righteousness! God's righteousness.

So, who might be just?

That HE (God) might be just

And the justifer of who, by the faith of Jesus?

The justifier of GOD!

We are STILL talking about the justification of GOD!

"To declare, I say, at this time HIS righteousness: that HE might be just, and the justifier of HIM (HIMSELF).

We are talking about the vindication of God! We are talking about God being "justified," the declaration of His being "just" and the "justification" of God now being made manifest by the fact that He sent His Son to be faithful unto death to pay for our sins.

It is HIS righteousness which is declared by Christ's faithfulness! It was done that HE, GOD might be just. That He might be justified by His sayings and overcome when He is judged by man, angel or devil as to whether He has been a "just" God or not. It was God who sent forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins. It was God who believed in Christ! Not man, for all men are liars and there is not a man living who does not come under the category - unbeliever.

It is as if Paul is saying - "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and that He might justify Himself, the God who believeth in Jesus, and set forth Jesus to be a propitiation for us through the faithfulness of Christ by Him allowing His blood to be shed for us.

So taking all of this into account.

"Where is boasting then?"

Where indeed is boasting? All of the people who claim to be justified because they believe. All of the people who claim to be justified because of their faith. Where is their boasting? All of the people who give themselves a good old clap on the back and say "Well I am saved BECAUSE I believe in Jesus, but I don't know what God is going to do with these Moslems and hindus and people of other faiths.

Where is ALL such boasting now?

It is excluded

You are dead right it is excluded. It is excluded on every count, at every turn of the way.

It is excluded.

"By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith."

What a gem! What a beauty! What a gorgeous smack in the mouth! What a diamond! What a - hit me over the head with a second blow of the hammer before I recover from the first blow with a headache, this statement is. Here is why your boasting concerning your faith is utterly excluded - because of the law of faith!

Read it and weep!

It is the law of faith itself which excludes your boasting. Your boasting is excluded by your very own boasting. All who claim that they are justified because they believe or have faith in Jesus are trying to be justified by the law - the law of faith. For it is the law which commands you to have faith. It is the law which says "Thou shalt have no other God before me."

Those who only a few minutes ago objected in self-righteous indignation to my saying that God had concluded ALL in unbelief, because they rated themselves as faithful souls who really did believe, above all other things: all those who shook their heads and frowned at such a statement that belief in Christ was not required for a man to be justified or made acceptable to God. THIS IS WHY YOU WERE CONCLUDED IN UNBELIEF! Because you have claimed that you stand righteous before God and are rendered acceptable unto Him because you believe in Christ, which is just as much a work of the law as Thou Shalt Not Kill is a work of the law.

No wonder that Paul reminds us that There is none that understandeth. They are all gone out of the way, etc.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

This is the further proof to totally clinch what I have just said, which every logical thinking, sane person must face up to.

How can it be said that we are justified by faith WITHOUT the works of the law, when faith itself IS a work of the law?

The whole meaning in Romans is clear when you both understand what he is talking about, and take into consideration all that he has established over the last few verses, and of whose "faith" we are talking about.

So when he utters those immortal words as a conclusion to this first part of his argument "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," he means, just as he has been meaning for the last full chapter -

Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by the faith or faithfulness of God. By the righteousness of God!

By the faith of God, I say.

By the faith of god who believed in the efficacy of Christ and who set forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins. We are justified by the faith of Christ who allowed Himself to be crucified. We are justified by the faith of God who kept the faith with Christ when He, God the Father was steadfast to His promise that He would not leave Christ in Hell, but would raise Him up again from the dead.

And it was done! He was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification. The righteousness of God is revealed to us from faith to faith. From the faith of God to the faith of Christ.

In the first instance it was Christ, the only "just one" who lived by the faith of God, and in the second instance this is how every man shall also live - by the faithfulness of God. Justified man shall live because He (Christ) the only "just" one was raised from the dead and now lives.

The just shall live by the faith of God, by the faithfulness of God, by the commitment of God who is a just and faithful God. Indeed His justification and ours relies upon His justness and faithfulness in paying the price for our sins.

Therefore we conclude that we are justified by faith, the same faith that Paul has been talking about since he first put pen to paper - the faith of God, without the deeds of the law. That is without our own belief which the law requires us to have.

We are justified before God by the faith of Christ and that alone! Without the deeds of the law! We are not justified by our own works of the law, neither are we justified by our own works of the law of faith.

And before my critics and those who haven't got a clue what I am talking about start to jump up and down like a frog that is trying to sit on a pin cushion and accuse me of saying that because we need not have faith to be justified we shouldn't give faith another thought or bother about it?

I didn't say that! I have said no such thing!

My critics are often guilty of claiming that I say things when I never say them at all. To suggest that this is what I am saying is just as crass as those who imagine that I say that because good works are not required for salvation we need not bother doing them. Such statements are made by those who not only do not understand what I say, nor do they wish to. They have no desire to understand, but find only a pleasure in deliberately misconstruing, twisting and perverting all sound doctrine on account of their pride or ego.

I have said what I have said, and so far I have not even mentioned our faith or belief other than to show its worthlessness in the matter of our justification before God.

This is the conclusion of this part of his argument. And if we are going to be ruled by chapter division, It should be the conclusion of this chapter, the following three verses really being the beginning of his next argument regarding how Abraham was justified. The fact that the Bible translators have tacked those three verses onto the end of this chapter only add to our confusion.

And I will follow Paul's reasoning in a logical way and allow this to be the conclusion of this part of his argument.