God's Judgment (1979)

Second in a four-part series on Romans 1-5
by John Stott

"The essence of human sin is, in fact, that it is a rejection of both God and truth. We sinners prefer our own way to the way of God and the way of truth. So we are prepared to defy God and stifle the truth in order to continue in unrighteousness."

Nothing keeps people away from Christ more than their inability to see their need of him, or their unwillingness to admit it. As Jesus himself put it, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).

He did not imply by this that there are some people so righteous that they do not need his salvation, but only that some think they are. In that condition of self-righteousness they will never come to Christ. Just as we go to the doctor only when we admit we are ill, so we will go to Christ only when we admit that we are guilty sinners.

It is this plain principle which lies behind the long passage we are to study today. Paul's purpose in it is to lay the "charge," as he puts it in 3:9, that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin." He does more than bring an accusation; he marshals the evidence against us, proves our guilt and secures a conviction.

All men and women, without a single and solitary exception, from both the Jewish and the Gentile worlds, are sinful, guilty and without excuse before God. Already they are under his wrath and condemnation.

The way Paul demonstrates the universality of sin and guilt is to divide the human race into several sections and arraign them one by one. His procedure in each case is the same. He reminds them of their knowledge of God and of goodness. He then confronts them with the uncomfortable fact that they have not lived up to their knowledge. On the contrary, they have either deliberately suppressed it or at least contradicted it by continuing to live in unrighteousness.

Therefore, they are guilty, inexcusably guilty, before God. Nobody can plead innocence, because nobody can plead ignorance. That is the thrust of Paul's argument throughout this passage.

Commentators are not agreed as to precisely which sections of mankind Paul is addressing. I can only share with you my own conclusion, after weighing the alternatives.

First, (in 1:18-32) he describes the depraved Gentile world in its idolatry, immorality and antisocial behavior.

Second, (in 2:1-16) he addresses critical moralists, whether Gentile or Jewish, who profess high ethical standards and, in condemning others, condemn themselves.

Third, (in 2:17-3:8) he turns to self-righteous Jews, who boast of their knowledge of God's will through the Law but do not keep it.

Fourth, (in 3:9-20) he encompasses the whole human race. Whichever segment of humanity Paul is addressing, his message is substantially the same. "You know the righteous requirements of God," he says. "Yet you have persisted in unrighteousness. You are guilty before God. You have no excuse. And you have no hope either—apart from the grace of God who justifies those who believe in Jesus."

Paul does not lose sight of this "righteousness of God." Indeed, it is the only possible context within which he could dare to expose the squalor of human unrighteousness. In 1:17 he has said that God's righteousness is revealed in the gospel. In 3:21 he repeats his statement: "but now ... the righteousness of God has been manifested." It is in between these two affirmations of our gracious God's justifying righteousness that he sandwiches his terrible exposure of our unrighteousness (1:18-3:20).

The Depraved Gentile World (1:18-32)

Right at the beginning of our long text the apostle develops his argument with relentless logic. In particular, let us look at verses 16-20, in which he refers in succession to the power of God (v. 16), the righteousness of God (v. 17), the wrath of God (v. 18) and the glory of God in creation (vv. 19-20). Each statement he makes is linked to the preceding one by the Greek conjunction gar, meaning "for" or "because." Perhaps I could clarify the stages of his argument by engaging him in dialog.

"I am not ashamed of the gospel," Paul says.

"Why not, Paul?"

"Because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (v.16).

"How so, Paul?"

"Because in it the righteousness of God [God's way of justifying sinners] is revealed" (v. 17).

"But why is this necessary, Paul?"

"Because the wrath; of God is revealed from heaven against the unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (v. 18).

"But how have people suppressed the truth, Paul?"

"Because the glory of God, ‘His eternal power and divine nature,’ is clearly seen in the created world, so that they are without excuse" (vv. 19-20).

It really is essential for us to grasp these successive allusions to God's power, righteousness, wrath and glory. The reason why the gospel is God's power for salvation is that it reveals God's righteousness (or way of justifying the unrighteous). The reason why the gospel reveals God's righteousness is that God's wrath is already revealed against the unrighteous. And the reason why God's wrath is revealed against the unrighteous is that they suppress the truth, his glory revealed to them in his creation. Thus Paul affirms a four-fold self-revelation of God, which we can now put in the opposite order:

First, God reveals his glory (power and deity) in creation.

Second, God reveals his wrath against the sin of those who suppress this knowledge.

Third, God reveals his righteousness toward sinners (his way of justifying them by faith) in the gospel.

Fourth, God reveals his power by saving those who believe.

Our text for today begins with verse 18, which declares that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven." Three questions immediately arise in our minds. First, what is meant by "the wrath of God?" Does God really get angry? If so, second, with whom does he get angry, and against whom is his anger revealed? And third, how is his anger "revealed"? What kind of disclosure is Paul referring to?

First, then, what is "the wrath of God"? It should not be necessary for me to assure you that the God of the Bible never loses his temper or gets mad at people. There is nothing irrational or passionate, nothing capricious or malicious, nothing spiteful or vindictive about his wrath. No, the wrath of God is his righteous reaction to evil, his implacable hostility to it, his refusal to condone it, and his just judgment upon it. Anders Nygren calls it "his holy displeasure at sin," and Charles Cranfield writes that it is "no nightmare of an indiscriminate, uncontrolled, irrational fury, but the wrath of the holy and merciful God."

We are now ready to put our second question. Against what is God's wrath directed? "Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (v.18). It will be observed that the word unrighteousness occurs twice, and that it is interpreted in terms of "ungodliness" on the one hand and of "suppressing the truth" on the other. The essence of human sin is, in fact, that it is a rejection of both God and truth. We sinners prefer our own way to the way of God and the way of truth. So we are prepared to defy God and stifle the truth in order to continue in unrighteousness.

It is the open-eyed willfulness of this rebellion which Paul emphasizes, for the rebels are far from being ignorant of what they are doing. They know what is "knowable" about God, since he has himself shown it to them (v.19). Ever "since the creation of the world" God's "invisible attributes," his "eternal power and divine nature," have been clearly visible and intelligible in his works. Just as an artist reveals himself by what he draws or paints, or by his music or sculpture, so the Divine Artist has revealed himself in his creation. As is written in the Old Testament, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God," and again "The whole earth is full of His glory" (Ps. 19:1; Is. 6:3).

After the great fire of London in 1666 St. Paul's Cathedral was rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren. He is buried in the cathedral crypt, and his tomb bears a Latin inscription which means "if you seek his monument, look around you. So too, if you seek God look around you at the things he has made." Creation is a visible disclosure of the invisible reality of God. So all human beings have some knowledge of God. We must not misunderstand this, however. Their knowledge of God does not mean that they do not need the gospel. For their knowledge of God does not save them. On the contrary, it condemns them because they have suppressed it.

Therefore, "they are without excuse" (v. 20). Or "there is therefore no possible defense for their conduct" (NEB). In particular, all forms of idolatry are inexcusable. "Even though they knew God [not of course as reconciled sinners know him in Christ, but as all people can know him in creation], they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks." Instead, "they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (vv. 21-22). Of this folly their idolatry was the chief evidence. For they "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image" in the form of some corruptible creature, whether man, bird, beast or reptile.

Verse 25 sums up the essence of their folly. They worship "the creature rather than the Creator" and so exchange "the truth of God for a lie," literally "the lie," since all false worship like idolatry is the supreme lie perpetrated by the father of lies, the devil.

As Paul defines the object of God's wrath, namely the unrighteousness of those who reject him and stifle his truth, his emphasis is plain. It is not only ludicrous to suppose that the Creator could be represented by an image of one of his creatures; it is also inexcusable, being a contradiction of the knowledge God has given them. They should have known better. They did know better. But they suppressed their knowledge. The modern idolatries of materialistic secularism, although the images they substitute for God are more sophisticated, are no different in principle. For they are a deliberate denial of the Transcendent Reality which (who) they know exists and claims their allegiance.

Our third question about God's wrath concerns how it is "revealed from heaven against all ... unrighteousness" as Paul declares it to be in verse 18. To be sure, his wrath will be revealed in the judgment of the last day (2:5). There is such a thing as "the wrath to come" (1 Thess. 1:10). But Paul uses a present tense to indicate that he is referring to a contemporary disclosure of God's wrath. Already God is revealing his wrath in society.

Most commentators seem to agree that he explains what he means by the terrible refrain he uses three times in verses 24, 26 and 28, saying, "Therefore God gave them over." Each time the Greek preposition eis is added, to indicate what it is to which God in his holy wrath abandons those who reject him and his truth. In general, he abandons them to themselves, to their own willful selfishness. But Paul particularizes.

First, (v. 24), "God gave them over" to immorality, to dishonoring their bodies. There is nothing more selfish than lust for another human body, outside of the beauty of the marriage relationship.

Second, (v. 26), "God gave them over" to what Paul calls "degrading passions," or what we would call "sexual perversion." He specifies lesbian practices in verse 26 and male homosexual intercourse in verse 27, both of which he condemns as replacing "the natural function for that which is unnatural." In other words, homosexual behavior is a perversion, because it is against "nature," against God's created order and purpose. God's created order from the beginning of Genesis right through the Bible is heterosexual marriage.

Third, (v. 28), "God gave them over" to "a depraved mind," leading to every conceivable form of antisocial conduct. Twenty-one examples are given in verses 29-31, including greed, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, slander and arrogance, the lack of respect for parents, and the lack of trustworthiness, love and mercy. It is a horrible list. It describes the breakdown of human community. And Paul adds the final indictment that these people not only practice such things but also encourage others to do so, in spite of their knowledge of God's ordinance that "such things are worthy of death."

Indeed, please notice that each time the refrain comes (namely, "God gave them over"), the reason for his judicial action is repeated; they have stifled their knowledge. Thus the cause and the effect of God's wrath are kept together.

First, "even though they knew God, they did not honor Him .... Therefore God gave them over … (vv. 21, 24). Second, "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie … For this reason God gave them over…" (vv. 25-26).

Third, "just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over…" (v. 28).
It is when human beings rebel against God's self-revelation that he gives them up to the consequences of their rebellion. His wrath is revealed against their ungodliness not in summary acts of judgment but in a process of moral and social degeneration. Standards disappear, absolutes are renounced and society disintegrates. Paul saw it in the contemporary Greco-Roman world, and we seem to be witnessing something similar in the permissive Western society of our own day. The rejection of God is always followed by idolatry in some form or other, and a corrupt mind leads to corrupt behavior. This is a revelation of the wrath of God, the outworking of his judgment on human sin.

The Critical Moralists (2:1-16)

Paul turns now from that part of the ancient world characterized by shameless immorality to another, very different section of it marked by a very self-conscious moralism. Far from approving, even applauding, lawless behavior (1:32), these people deplore and condemn it (2:1-3). Who are they?

Some commentators, although noting that Paul does not address the Jews by name until verse 17, nevertheless believe that it is Jewish moralists whom he has in mind from the beginning of the chapter. They point out the parallels between these verses and chapters 11-15 of the Jewish Book of Wisdom. But we must not overlook the fact that the apostle styles the one he is now addressing as just a human being, "every man of you" (v. 1), and "O man" (v. 3) without specifying any racial, national, cultural or religious background. He seems therefore to be confronting the general phenomenon of human moralism, of people with highly developed faculties of moral criticism, whether Jewish or Gentile.

He certainly does not exclude Gentiles from his description here, any more than he would exclude Jewish idolaters from his description at the end of chapter 1. This interpretation (that the group of people called "critical moralists" includes both Jews and Gentiles) is borne out by verses 9-11. In both verses 9 and 10 he repeats the phrase "the Jew first and also ... the Greek," and then adds the statement in verse 11 that "there is no partiality with God" in judgment any more than in salvation (1:16).

He develops this further in verses 12-16, emphasizing that Jews who have the law and Gentiles who do not, nevertheless both know it and will both be judged by their disobedience to it.

Moralist and moralizer are the words which F. F. Bruce uses to identify the people Paul now addresses. Of Jewish moralists there were many, ever ready to criticize Gentiles for their misconduct. Gentile moralists were scarcer. As an example, Professor Bruce suggests, "Paul's illustrious contemporary Seneca, the Stoic moralist, the tutor of Nero."

Although Paul is now speaking to moralists rather than the openly immoral, his basic argument remains the same. Both groups have a certain "knowledge," both contradict it in their behavior and both are therefore "without excuse." He uses the same Greek word of the moralizers in 2:1, as he did of the flagrantly immoral in 1:20. They are anapologatos, inexcusable. Yet there is a certain difference between them in the kind of knowledge Paul says they have. According to 1:20 it is a knowledge of God's eternal power and divine nature"; according to 2:2 it is a knowledge of the holy "judgment of God." Not that one section of humanity has one kind of knowledge and a second section another kind. This is clear from 1:32 where the first group are also said to know God's holiness and judgment. Paul is simply stressing each kind of knowledge in its appropriate context.

But all of us have both kinds of knowledge. Because we know God as Creator, there is no excuse for our idolatry; because we know him as judge, there is no excuse for our disobedience. The Gentiles stand condemned because of the general revelation he has given them outwardly in creation and inwardly in conscience. The Jews also stand condemned because of the special revelation which God has given them in Scripture. God's judgment falls not on the ignorant but on the knowledgeable. Universal moral knowledge and universal moral rebellion have resulted in universal moral culpability.

Coming now to a more detailed study of the early verses of chapter 2, we must notice the careful analysis which the apostle makes of all moralists, including us, who have a God-given understanding both that there is a distinction between right and wrong, and that wrongdoing deserves punishment.

First, Paul exposes our hypocrisy (vv. 1-3) in doing ourselves the very things for which we condemn others. He uncovers a strange human foible, of which we are all aware from experience and observation. It is the tendency to be critical of everybody except ourselves. We are as harsh in our judgment of others as we are lenient towards ourselves. We enjoy working ourselves up into a state of self-righteous indignation over the disgraceful behavior of other people, while somehow the very same behavior does not seem half so serious when it is ours rather than theirs. We even gain a vicarious satisfaction from condemning in others the very faults which we excuse in ourselves.

Freud called this moral gymnastic "projection," but another Jewish scholar, Paul, described it long before Freud was born. It is a quirk of fallen human nature, enabling us to retain our moral sense without losing our moral self-respect. We do it by applying our standards to other people instead of to ourselves. The device is simple, slick and sick.

Paul's argument is that this practice leaves us without excuse. If our critical faculties are so well developed that we become experts in the moral evaluation of others, we cannot possibly plead ignorance of moral issues. On the contrary, in judging others (v. 1) we thereby condemn ourselves who do the very same things. We know, whether from the biblical law or from our created moral sense, the justice of God's judgment (v. 2). How then can we suppose that when we play God and make our judgments, we can escape his (v. 3)? This is the hypocrisy of a double standard high for others, low for ourselves.

Second, in verses 4 and 5, Paul draws attention to our impenitence. Sometimes, he says, we take refuge in a theological argument (for theology can be put to many uses, bad as well as good), namely, that in "the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience" God will condone our sin.

But such trust in God's patience is not faith; it is presumption. His kindness is not intended to give us an excuse for sinning, but rather to lead us to repentance. If it does not, then because of our "stubbornness and unrepentant heart" we are "storing up" something for ourselves—not the treasure of eternal salvation, as Paul's "storage" metaphor might have led his readers to expect, but "wrath," God's holy wrath, on the fearful "day of wrath" on which his "righteous judgment" will be revealed.

Third, in verses 6-11, Paul refers to our works and emphasizes the indispensable necessity of good works if we are to escape the judgment of God. Verse 6 states the inflexible principle, laid down in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12) which Paul echoes here, and which was repeated again and again by Jesus and his apostles (e.g., Mt. 16:27; 1 Cor. 3:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 2:23; 20:12; 22:12), namely, that God "will render to everybody [Jew and Gentile, immoral and moralist, Christian and non-Christian] according to his deeds."

Some readers are immediately up in arms. "Paul cannot possibly mean this," they say. "Has he taken leave of his senses? Does he begin by affirming that salvation is by faith, and then destroy his own gospel by affirming that it is by good works after all?" Others try to restrict the application of Paul's statement to unbelievers, adding that of course Christians are not judged by their works. But Paul is neither contradicting himself nor alluding to the judgment of unbelievers alone. He is describing God's universal principle of judgment, that although his justification is by faith alone, his judgment will be according to our works.

The reason for this is not hard to find. We have to remember that the Day of Judgment will be a public occasion. Its purpose will be less to determine God's judgment than to declare it and to vindicate it publicly. The divine process of judgment (the separation between the saved and the lost) is going on secretly all the time; on that day its consequences will be made public. On the "day of wrath," as we have already noted from verse 5 there is to be a "revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

Such a public occasion, on which a public verdict will be given and a public sentence passed, will require public and verifiable evidence to support them. The only available public evidence will be our works, what we have done (or not done) and what we have been seen to do. True, God will judge "the secrets of men" (verse 16) but either these will be secret deeds which will then be made public, or, if secret thoughts, corresponding deeds will be produced in evidence. For the only way to demonstrate the presence or absence of saving faith in our hearts is to bear witness to the presence or absence of good works of love in our lives.

As both Paul and James emphasize, a saving faith issues in good works; if it does not, it is bogus (for example, Gal. 5:6; Jas. 2:14-26). I may claim to believe. But if I do not obey him and express my faith in obedience and good works of love, then my claim to believe is spurious. Verses 7-10 enlarge on this. The final destinies of mankind are described on the one hand as "eternal life" (v. 7) or "glory and honor and peace" (v. 10), and on the other as "wrath and indignation" (v. 8) or "tribulation and distress" (v. 9). The "deeds," on the basis of which the divine judgment will be pronounced, are in verses 9 and 10 termed simply "doing evil" and "doing good." But in verses 7 and 8 they are elaborated. According to verse 7 those who will receive eternal life are "those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality." That is, they have a .spiritual ambition and an eternal perspective, and they persevere in acts of kindness. Those who will fall under God's wrath, however, are described as "those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness" (v. 8). That is, their ambitions are self-centered rather than godly, and they suppress the truth they know in order to follow evil. It is in such deeds that the secrets of human hearts are revealed.

Further, this applies to every human being, whether Jew or Greek, as he repeats in verses 9 and 10, irrespective of race and culture, because God shows no partiality (v.11). He "will render to every man according to his deeds" (v. 6) with the strictest impartiality.

This general principle of God's impartial judgment according to works Paul now applies in particular to Jews and Gentiles (vv. 12-16). They differ from each other in that Jews possess the Mosaic Law, while Gentiles do not. Yet there is no distinction between them either in the sin they have committed, or in the guilt they have incurred, or in the judgment they will receive—unless of course they cry to God for mercy. For "all who have sinned" (repeated twice in v. 12) will fall under judgment, whether they have sinned "without the Law" or "under the Law," since (v.13) it is not the "hearers" but only the "doers" of the law who can be justified. And no human being, Jew or Gentile, has ever obeyed God's law perfectly. So there is no possibility of salvation along that road.

There is such a thing as partial obedience, however. Even Gentiles, although they do not possess God's law (a fact which is stated twice in this verse), sometimes "do instinctively the things of the Law" (v.14). This adverb, which the NASB renders "instinctively," means literally "by nature." It means that God has created them self-conscious moral beings, on account of which they "are a law to themselves," or "they are their own law" (NEB). Although they do not have the law in their hands (as the Jews do), they nevertheless show by their behavior that they have it in their hearts.

For God himself has written it there (v. 15), not in the special new covenant sense that the Holy Spirit has regenerated them (Jer. 31:33) but in the general sense that God their maker has given them a moral instinct by creation. Moreover, their conscience (which is here distinguished from their "hearts") also bears its witness, "their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." Here their hearts, their conscience and their thoughts are pictured as joining in a kind of internal moral debate.

Do not misunderstand this. Paul is saying neither that the Gentiles always know what is right, nor that they always do it, still less that they can earn salvation by doing it. He is saying rather that on those occasions when they fulfill the requirements of God's law (which everybody does sometimes), they give evidence that they know it by nature.

This teaching has great importance. It declares that the same moral law which God has revealed in Scripture he has also stamped on human nature. He has in fact written his law twice, once on stone tablets and once on human hearts. In consequence, the moral law is not an alien system, which it is unnatural to expect human beings to obey. The opposite is the case. God's moral law perfectly fits us, because it is the law of our own created being. There is a fundamental correspondence between God's law in the Bible and God's law in our hearts. Hence we can discover our authentic humanness only in obeying it. If we disobey it, we contradict not only what we know to be right, but we are contradicting our own human being. To do this is to be without sense, as well as without excuse. (Incidentally, it is good to remember this in evangelism. Say to yourself when you are witnessing to somebody, say secretly in your heart, "His or her conscience is on my side.")

Let me add at this point an implication of what Paul is teaching, even though he does not himself draw it out. It concerns evangelism. It is important to remember, whenever we are sharing the gospel with other people, that their conscience is on our side. True, the conscience of fallen human beings is often mistaken (it needs to be educated by the Word of God) and often sleepy (it needs to be awakened by the Spirit of God).

True also, some people deny that they have any sense of sin, insisting at the same time that everything is relative now, for there are no moral absolutes anymore. Do not believe them, I beg you. For by creation God still endows all human beings with a moral sense, which our inherited fallenness has distorted but not destroyed. Unless and until people so violate and smother their conscience as to "cauterize" it (a word Paul uses in 1 Tim. 4:2) or render it insensitive, it continues to trouble them. They know they are sinful and guilty, however much they may protest the contrary.

Let us remember this. For the gospel speaks to people only in that condition; it has no message for those who think they are righteous.

Self-righteous Jews (2:17-3:8)

In verse 17, however much he may already have had Jews in mind, Paul now addresses them by name: "But if you bear the name 'Jew.'..." He anticipates their objections to what he has written.
" Surely," some Jewish readers will be retorting, "you can't lump us with Gentile outsiders? Surely, Paul, you must admit that our situation as Jews is entirely different? Have you forgotten that we have the Law, the revelation of God, and circumcision, the sign of the covenant of God? Are you saying that we Jews, with God's Law and God's covenant, are no better off than those Gentiles who have neither? Aren't you forgetting the privileges which God himself has given us and which surely will shield us from his judgment?"

That Paul envisages such objections is evident. For he alludes to the law in verses 17-24 and to circumcision in verses 25-29, and insists that neither gives to Jews an immunity to the judgment of God.

As for the law, Paul gives a full description of Jewish self-righteousness. You "rely upon the Law, and boast in God," he says (v. 17). As a result, you "know His will, and approve the things that are essential," for you are well "instructed out of the Law" (v. 18). And being thus instructed yourself, you go on to instruct others. You are confident that you are "a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature"- all because in the law you have "the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth" (vv. 19-20. This is what God's law is. Paul does not deny it.

Paul's complaint is not about their knowledge, but about their performance. "You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?" (v. 21). All this moral knowledge of yours does not exempt you from God's judgment; it rather invites it. For the greater our privileges, the greater are our responsibilities (cf. Amos 3:2). Just as judging others brings us under greater condemnation (vv. 1-3), so does teaching others. As James puts it in his letter, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment" (3:1). If we judge others, we should be able to judge ourselves, and if we teach others, we should be able to teach ourselves. It should be obvious that, if we set ourselves up as either a judge or a teacher of others, we cannot claim to live in ignorance of moral issues ourselves.

In verses 21 and 22, Paul mentions the commandments against theft, adultery and idolatry, and accuses Jewish moralists of preaching these prohibitions but not practicing what they preach. They "boast in the Law" and at the same time break it (v. 23). Their hypocrisy dishonors God and, as the prophets kept saying in Old Testament days, "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles" because of them (v. 24; see Is. 52:5; Ezek. 36:20, 23).

If their law-knowledge did not exempt them from God's judgment, neither did their circumcision. True, it was the God-given sign of his covenant of grace, in which he promised to be their God and to make them his people. Yet circumcision was no magical ceremony, offering permanent insurance against divine judgment. The covenant sign of circumcision committed God's people to keep the covenant and obey the law. It was valuable, therefore, only to those who proved themselves to be God's people (which their circumcision declared them to be) by their obedience (v. 25). If they broke the law, however, their circumcision would be equivalent to uncircumcision.

Their circumcision did not make them what their disobedience proved they were not. So then, the opposite is also true (vv. 26-27). That is, among the uncircumcised, obedience is equivalent to circumcision, and such a person will condemn those who have both the law and circumcision but break the law.

This leads to a tremendous statement in verses 28 and 29, already adumbrated by prophets like Jeremiah, and of course underlined by Jesus, that inward reality is far more important in God's sight than outward ceremony. The real Jew is one inwardly not outwardly, and true circumcision is in the heart not the body, "by the Spirit and not by the letter." One might say exactly the same of the real Christian and of true baptism. The outward and visible sign is of great value only if it bears witness to the inward and spiritual grace received. Such a person, in whom the Spirit of God is at work, receives "his praise" (which is the meaning of the word Judah from which Jew is derived [cf. Gen. 29:35 and 49:8]) "not from men, but from God."

It is not difficult to imagine that Jewish people would either listen to such teaching with incredulity, or feel utterly squashed by it. Paul expresses the questions they would inevitably ask: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?" (3:1). Paul has already answered these questions. From the point of view of merit, or of their efficacy to protect them from judgment, the law and circumcision had no value and were of no advantage. But this does not mean that they were worthless. On the contrary, they were great blessings which God bestowed on his covenant people. In particular his people "were entrusted with the oracles of God" (v. 2). To be appointed the trustees of God's special revelation was an immense privilege. It did not make them immune to his judgment if they proved unfaithful, however.

This will have raised further questions in Jewish minds, now about the character of God, especially about his faithfulness and his justice. Would not his judgment on Israel contradict both these? Paul emphatically denies it.

First, God's faithfulness is not nullified by Israel's unfaithfulness (vv. 3-4). For even if every human being were found to be a liar, God himself is always true, as the Scripture says (Paul gives a free translation of Psalm 51:4).

Second, God's justice is equally unstained. An imaginary objector argues like this: "If our injustice the better displays God's justice (v. 5), and if our falsehood the better displays his truth (v. 7), if (that is) our sin promotes God's glory by setting forth his perfection in bolder relief, why should God complain and judge us? Why should we not rather do evil that good may come' (as some slanderers accused Paul of teaching)?" (v. 8). Their very suggestion filled the apostle with horror. It deserved no serious refutation. "Their condemnation is just" (v. 8), he says. God is going to judge the world (v. 6); how could he possibly be guilty of injustice?

The Whole Human Race (3:9-20)

Paul is approaching the conclusion of his argument. He has exposed the blatant unrighteousness of much of the ancient Gentile world (1:18-32), the hypocritical righteousness of moralizers and the legal self-righteousness of the Jews who yet break God's moral law. Is there then no benefit at all in being a Jew? Paul asks this question twice, and gives apparently opposite answers.

Question: "Then what advantage has the Jew?" (v.1). Answer: "Great in every respect" (v. 2).

Question: "What then? Are we Jews any better off?" (v. 9 RSV, NEB). Answer: "No, not at all."

It sounds as if Paul is directly contradicting himself. First, he says there is great advantage in being a Jew, and then he says there is none. How can we resolve this seeming discrepancy? By realizing that the "advantage" which the Jews possessed must be understood in terms of privilege (that God had entrusted his revelation to them), and not in terms of favoritism (that God would exempt them from judgment). That kind of advantage they certainly did not have. For, as the apostle continues, "We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (v. 9), that is, "under the power of sin" (RSV, NEB). Sin is almost personified. It is a tyrant which holds all mankind imprisoned in guilt and under judgment.

This fact Paul goes on to support from Scripture. He gives a catena of six Old Testament quotations, five from the Psalms (14:1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; 36:1) and one from Isaiah (59:7-8), which all in their different ways bear witness to the universality of human sin and guilt. Two features of this biblical portrait of mankind are particularly noteworthy.

First, it teaches the ungodliness of sin. For example, "There is none who seeks for God" (v. 11) and "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (v.18). This is more than an assertion that sin is due to ungodliness, that is, that it is because "all have turned aside" from God (v. 12), that "there is none who does good." Mind you, this is true. It is when people fear God that they renounce evil, and conversely when they renounce God that they plunge recklessly into evil. But the Scripture goes beyond this and identifies the very essence of sin as ungodliness, as we saw in 1:18. Sin is the revolt of the self against God. It is the dethronement of God and the enthronement of self. Sin is "getting rid of the Lord God" and proclaiming our own sovereignty. Ultimately, sin is "self-deification."

Second, these Old Testament quotations teach the pervasiveness of sin. Sin affects every part of us, every human faculty and function. There seems to be a deliberate listing of these. Our "throat is an open grave" (v.13) full of corruption and infection, our tongues deceive and our lips spread poison. Our "mouth is full of cursing and bitterness" (v. 14). Our "feet are swift to shed blood" (v. 15), scattering "destruction and misery" in our paths (v.16), instead of walking "the path of peace" (v.17). We do not keep God "before our eyes" or reverence him (v. 18). Here then is mention of our throat, tongue, lips and mouth, of our feet and our eyes. All these organs are in rebellion against God.

This is the biblical doctrine of "total depravity," which is much misunderstood. It has never meant that all human beings are as depraved as they could possibly be. Such a notion is manifestly absurd and untrue. We are not all drunkards, thieves, adulterers and murderers. No, the "totality" of our corruption refers to its extent (affecting every part of us), not to its degree (depraving every part of us absolutely). It means, to quote J. I. Packer, "not that at every point man is as bad as he could be, but that at no point is he as good as he should be."

Now that Paul has quoted these six texts of Old Testament Scripture, it is natural to inquire to whom they apply. The Jew might argue that, of course, they describe Gentile sinners. He would be right. They do. But this does not complete their application. "Now we know," Paul continues in verse 19, "that what the Law says ['the Law' here covering the whole Old Testament], it speaks to those who are under the Law." In other words, these texts describe Jews as well as Gentiles. They are God's portrait of all mankind. Their purpose is to stop every mouth, to silence every excuse and to make the whole world accountable to God.

The words "that every mouth may be closed," comments Charles Cranfield, "evoke the picture of the defendant in court, who, given the opportunity to speak in his own defence, is speechless because of the weight of the evidence which has been brought against him." This is the point to which Paul has been steadily moving. The idolatrous and immoral Gentiles are "without excuse" (1:20). All critical moralists, whether Jews or Gentiles, are also "without excuse" (2:1). In fact, all the inhabitants of "all the world" (3:19), without any exception, are inexcusable. By his expression "accountable to God" Paul is probably portraying us, says Charles Cranfield, as "men standing at God's bar, their guilt proven beyond all possibility of doubt, awaiting God's sentence of condemnation."

The reason is that we have all known God's law and have all disregarded it. That is why "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight." For what the law brings us is "the knowledge of sin," not its remission. As Luther often said, its function is not to justify but to terrify, and so to drive us to Christ.

How should we respond to this devastating portrayal of universal human sin and guilt?

First, we must make it as certain as we can that we have ourselves fled from the just judgment of God upon our sins to the only refuge there is, Jesus Christ, who died in our place. We have no merit to plead, no excuse to make. We stand condemned and speechless. But God himself in Christ on the cross has borne our condemnation. For this reason only we can be justified, if we take refuge in Jesus.

Second, we simply cannot keep this good news to ourselves. All around us are men and women who know enough about God's glory and holiness to make their rejection of him and of his law inexcusable. They stand condemned. Their only hope of justification is in Christ. So let us boldly speak to them of him. Their mouth is closed in guilt; let our mouth be opened in testimony!

Comments

Be the first one to add a comment.

To post a comment, please login or register

God's Judgment (1979)

God's Word

Urbana Stories

35 days until

December 27-31, 2009