No, Sir. It's "more" helpful to conder the surrounding context of both verses in order to follow Paul's argument. The reason why the objector even proposes the question regarding (romans 3:7) is because he was not content nor satisfied with what Paul had previously said in regards to who exactly was a true Jew and who's praise is truly from God (romans 2:28-29) according to His will alone. The Objector was responding to what Paul has previously said in Chapter 2. The Objector understood that God was selectively and unilaterally circumcising individuals hearts of His choosing in order that they may obey Him (romans 2:5, 25). Paul was informing essentially the "circumcision party" that jewish ethnicity and physical circumcision has value "only" if you obey the Law (romans 2:25). However, they could not obey the Law or God because their hearts were uncircumcised, stubborn, and unrepentant (romans 2:5). They were in need of a changed heart. This is why the objector asked the question - "then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?" If God is essentially choosing according to His own prerogative as to who will be saved (romans 2:10) by selectively 'spiritually' circumcising certain individual hearts - then what advantage does the Jew have over the Gentiles? Paul explains - the Jews were entrusted with the Word of God as His chosen people; a light to the nations and disseminators of God's truth. They have a special role in the Lord's earthly Kingdom as a Kingdom of Priest as His chosen ones regarding their call to this specific task unto which has not been revoked (romans 11:29).
However, the objector doubles down on his dissatisfaction with Paul's response by responding - "But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?" Mind you, the objector responded this way, just after Paul declared - "By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” The Apostle Paul was informing the objector and all who think like him that when God is seemingly having to be judged by lying sinful man as if He has somehow become unrighteous or unjust in saving whom He wills according to His own sovereign choice; He will ultimately be vindicated or exonerated in His judgements according to His own divine standard of righteousness and not man's. The whole point of the Law is to point out sin and lead you to Christ for forgiveness of sin NOT to conclude "let us sin that God grace may abound" as to undermine the purpose & wisdom of God according to an eternal plan regarding the salvation of man that has been decreed before the ages. Those who think in such a way; according to Paul, their condemnation is just.
However, the same objection the objector has in Romans Chapter 3 (But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?) is essentially the same objection that the Objector has in Romans Chapter 9 (You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?)" AND for the same REASON. Both objectors undermined the faithfulness of God (romans 3:3-4 and romans 9:6) in spite of Him electing certain individuals to salvation for His own glory and both rejected Him as an unjust God in doing so (romans 3:5 and romans 9:14). Let's be clear! In both instances, according to the context - both Objectors were objecting to God's choice in the salvation of man apart from the will of man aka the "free will" of man. God circumcises the hearts of those (romans 2:28-29) whom He has beforehand elected; even prior to their birth (romans 9:11) as to demonstrate His rightful sovereign choice to do as He wills (romans 9:21-24). Im arguing that both Objectors in Romans Chapter 3 and Romans Chapter 9 are objecting to the very same thing - God's sovereign choice in the salvation of man!
By Aaron Fisher
No comments:
Post a Comment