The Honor Of The Court

Romans – A Treatise
Chapter Three
THE HONOR OF THE COURT

Scripture Reading: verses 1-10

As we read Romans 3:1-10 again, it comes home that this is a lawyer’s brief. It brilliantly sets forth the prosecution’s case against both Jew and Gentile, and Paul raises the great question regarding the trial’s object.

Keep in mind that in our own criminal courts, the process of law may seem a tedious and involved affair, so much so that the actual object of the trial becomes obscure. Nevertheless, the real objective is to present the case for and against the accused in order that he may be proved either guilty or innocent. The terms of the truths of these verses present the same idea, and in this third chapter the lawyer for the prosecution is making a summary – there is none righteous, no, not one; Jew and Gentile together have been proved guilty. We have not yet heard from the defense attorney, but before we come to the end of this chapter we shall find he has much to say. It is doubtful that we can properly understand this epistle unless we see the whole drama, i.e., the trial of two accused criminals, Jew and Gentile, before the bar of the august throne of God on a strictly legal and righteous basis. If we get this groundwork fixed in our thoughts and hearts, the result will be that when we come to the consummation not a shadow of doubt will be left in our minds regarding our standing before a Holy God. The clarity of our perception of this depends on how we think about salvation; failing to grasp its significance means we shall always be in doubt regarding whether we are eternally saved or not.¹

So in the opening verses of this third chapter we learn the advantage of the Jew by his traditional faith. His chief advantage is this: to him the oracles of God have been committed. He has the Holy Scriptures in his hand. A great question is raised in verse three and the prosecution lawyer speaks:

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou are judged.²

Here the prosecution lawyer is drawing attention to the infallibility of the judge sitting on the bench – God Himself. His question simply means: the honor of the court, the justice of God's throne are not affected by the opinion of the criminal. Unbelief does not change the sterling quality of God’s righteousness. The criminal must understand: “Let God be true and every man a liar.” In other words, there must be no contempt of court because of the criminal’s unbelief.

To transfer the picture to one of our own courts of law, it is as though a lawbreaker is brought into custody by the sheriff. The first thing he learns is that when the judge walks into the room everybody stands. It is a gesture of honor bespeaking the dignity of the jurisprudence of our realm. By the court’s verdict, the welfare of that criminal will rise or fall, no matter what his own individual opinion may be regarding the judge’s character, or any of his trial’s proceedings. That is the premise given to us in these verses: “Let God be true and every man a liar . . . That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”³ The verdict of the court will be final, because the judge is God and we are but His creature.

In verse five a new question arises: “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” And Paul interpolates here: “I speak as a man; God forbid, for then how shall God judge the world?” Raised here is an important question: the right of a constituted authority to punish a criminal. Again, thinking of a regular law court, the culprit is brought before the judge, let us say charged with first-degree murder. Under law, he must pay the penalty, and so the judicial authority of our federal government will sentence him accordingly. If the sentence is death, is the judge also a criminal, a murderer? It is a logical question. Paul says: “I speak as a man.” Shall we logically reason that two wrongs do not make a right? So, as the prosecuting attorney, Paul goes on to say that in this case he is slanderously accused: “Let us do evil, that good may come, whose damnation is just.” In other words, the eye is shifted from the criminal to the one who takes vengeance on him and as well as His inspired servant, God Himself is accused of evil-doing because He punishes the criminal for his sin. “God forbid!”

This line of argument is exceedingly prevalent on the lips of unbelief. We often hear men say they do not believe that a God of love would ever punish anybody for sin. That is the same voice that is heard in Romans three. Concerning such people, Paul says, “whose damnation is just.” We recognize the righteously constituted authority of our state or federal government in punishing the criminal who commits murder, holds up a bank, or sells drugs. We recognize that such should be punished by the constituted authority. Yet, when it comes my sin against God, unbelief has the brazen effrontery before the august throne of God to question His right to punish the evil-doer. That is the crux of this brilliant legal argument presented by the Spirit of God through Paul, and on this question hangs the acceptance or rejection of my sinner-ship and consequent condemnation.

Every avenue of escape is closed in this chapter and both Jew and Gentile stand in the prisoner's dock, their mouths stopped on a righteous basis, awaiting the fell stroke of divine judgment that will plunge them to eternal condemnation. Happily, the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ on Calvary’s Cross comes into view and salvation through the blood of Christ is presented. We can never be forgiven sinners until we are guilty sinners – never be justified until condemned.

Footnotes:
¹ For more on this subject see God’s Salvation section on contents page of this website.
² This verse continues in the main line of Paul’s theme in Romans, a demonstration of the righteousness of God, that is, of the righteousness that marks God’s character; and, therefore, to the insinuation that God would be unfaithful if he refused (on the basis of human sin) to convey eternal salvation to the Jews, the allegation that such a refusal would make God blameworthy – to all such thoughts, Paul bluntly replied, God forbid … “Certainly not.” It is precisely the faithfulness of God that does deny to wicked men the fulfillment of God’s promises to them, which promises were from the first and always, contingent on human faithfulness. Let God be true, and every man a liar ... means “Let it be obvious that God is true, in spite of the fact that every man may prove to be false.” God is eternally true and righteous; and, upon those occasions when God judges people guilty of sin and unworthy of his benefits, it is because they are so. It was the major premise underlying the great life of Abraham that God will always do right, regardless of human behavior. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” was Abraham’s great question, addressed to God in prayer, and understood in that context as an affirmation that “Of course, the Judge of all the earth will always do right” (Gen. 18:25).
³ In verse 5, Paul was still dealing with the quibbler. He had just proved that sin, even though in the best of people, as was the case with David, resulted in a demonstration of God’s justice and righteousness. The quibble was to the effect that since sin served to display God’s glory in such manifestations of his justice, it would be unrighteous of God to punish the sins which had been the occasion of advertising His justice. Paul wasted little time on that quibble, disposing of it in ten words. Here is Emil Brunner’s paraphrase from his book, The Letter to the Romans, p. 25: “But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?” This quibble fitted into the Jewish objection against Paul, as John Murray pointed out in his book, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. i, p. 96: “If unbelief (as you say) does not make void God’s faithfulness, but renders it more conspicuous, or serves to exhibit more clearly the righteousness of God, then God would be unrighteous in inflicting his wrath upon the ungodly.” Of course, there is more to this quibble than meets the eye, for it touches on one of the truly great mysteries, that of how God can overrule sin, which is contrary to His will, and do so in such manner as to bring about the accomplishment of His purpose. In a more familiar setting, for example, “How could it be just for God to punish Judas, who only did what the prophets had foretold he would do?” What are some of the ways God overrules sin for the good of His children? Sin increases man’s appreciation for the goodness and holiness of God. People’s lives are disciplined through the sorrows suffered because of sin. Through pitiful experience, man learns what he should have known all the time, that God’s Word is altogether true and faithful, that “the wages of sin is death.” God’s teaching regarding sin is verified and confirmed by every sin ever committed, whether by saint or sinner; and this overwhelming verification of the Word of God is a strong inducement to trusting and serving God. Sin also induces sympathy for other sinners on the part of them that sin. All of this may be only another way of saying that God uses two kinds of vessels in the achievement of His wise designs, those unto honor, and those unto dishonor; and the freedom of the human will enables man to choose the kind of vessel he will become; but it is not within the sphere of human prerogative to avoid the divine use of his life altogether. If one becomes a gross sinner, God will make an example out of him. God overruled the sin of Judas to make it serve His holy purpose of Jesus’ being offered up during the Passover, thus fulfilling the Scriptures. Sin is overruled in the lives of Christians, provided always that sin is fully repented of and forgiven. Romans 3:6 is Paul’s blunt, almost horrified denial of any unworthiness that might be attributed to God for His judgment of wicked men; thus, here, as so frequently in the New Testament, judgment is held to be axiomatic with reference to God. It seems to us that Paul is dealing with Jewish objections; and, although there may be an application of the principles mentioned here to Christians, it seems plain that the passage is addressed to the Jewish objector. In his book, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, p. 69, R.L. Whiteside wrote, “That this is another objection that a Jew might make is shown by the fact that Paul immediately adds, ‘(I speak after the manner of men).’”