Questioning God's Righteousness & Justice
Romans 3:5-8 · Bob Eckel · Feb 19, 2006
Romans (2005-07), No. 20
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4826234472321

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Let's turn to Romans 3 and kind of revisit the section of scripture that we're looking at that Hal taught last week and to conclude today. This section of Romans 3 now kind of comes to the conclusion of Paul addressing the separation from God by sin of three groups of people. The first group was the immoral world, and we saw lots of graphic examples about the immoral world and the way they carry themselves, ultimately justifying their lifestyle as acceptable and appropriate. And then the second group that was addressed in Romans 2 was the moral world, the self-righteous Gentile unbeliever, who's judging everybody else and not assuming any responsibility for his or her own sin, and really kind of the self-righteous, if you will, outside of the nation of Israel. And now this is the third group. This is a culmination of verses that began in the middle of Romans 2, and that finishes up Romans 5 through 8, which we'll read today. But let's go ahead and read Romans 3, 1 through 8.

What advantage then hath the Jew, or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way, chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe, shall their unbelief make the faithfulness 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.

Now the verses that we're going to address today are verses five through eight. But if all unrighteousness commend the righteousness 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 are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, let us do evil that good may come. Whose condemnation is just?

All right. So again, this concludes Paul addressing three groups of people. The final one, the Jew, who questions God's righteousness and justice. So let's look now at the beginning of this section today, Romans 3.5. And here's the amplified version, which I found to be maybe a little bit more capably understood than the King James, which I just read. But if our unrighteousness thus establishes and exhibits the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust and wrong to inflict His wrath upon us?

Parenthetically, the Jew. Remember, the Jews are special people. God had not made a covenant with any other group of people. So these people are looking at themselves as privileged, which they are. And then Paul finishes the verse, I speak in a purely human way. All right, let's go ahead and progress here. In the first phrase, what shall we say? The end of the first phrase or first sentence.

That's pretty rhetorical. What do we mean when we say something's rhetorical? Unnecessary, but perhaps there's another interpretation of rhetorical too. Rhetorical can be interpreted as redundant, but I think maybe that's not exactly what is meant here by rhetorical.

It's an attempt to provide a further emphasis. It's a pronouncement, a kind of a declaration of this is what it is. We can look at that as redundant, And redundancy is potentially a way, Wendy, that we can interpret that. But I think here, you know, when Paul says, what shall we say, he's kind of emphasizing what has been said already. So I think it's a nice phrase to interpret as emphasis, not simply rhetorical. Come on. All right.

Now, in the new King James Version or in the old King James Version, The verb is a single verb for establishes and exhibits. It's translated as commends. Now, I don't know about you, but commends, I think we understand it, and we really kind of have been used to seeing it in the scripture. But I really kind of like what the Amplified has done here, and many other versions, by the way, translate it as this. Establishes and exhibits. So the commendation, if you will, is based on something being fixed, and fixed and portrayed to be what it really is. Let's look at this a little bit more in detail.

Other good examples are in Romans 5.8 and 2 Corinthians 4.2.

Craig, could you take a look at Romans 5.8?

And Barbara, could you look at 2 Corinthians 4.2? These are verses worth looking at, just in terms of emphasizing how if you translate commend as establish and exhibit, how much even more these verses really take on in the way of meaning. Craig? Now read it with established and exhibit. See, commends and demonstrates to me is relatively weak. And if you go back into the root use of the Greek word, the combination of establishing and exhibit is a much stronger statement.

Barbara, how about 2 Corinthians 4.2?

But we have renounced the hidden thing of shame, not walking in craftiness or handling the world the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience, Okay, so the commending here relates to what truth? 2 Corinthians 4, to that great chapter of 2 Corinthians. It's the Word of God, is it not? So the Word of God has been handled craftily and dishonestly and deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth, commending or establishing and exhibiting ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

I mean, again, I'm just trying to give you this alternative interpretation that in this section in Romans that we're looking at today, that establishing and exhibiting is a much, I think, stronger translation than in fact commending. Now, also in the verse, it indicates that God is himself the inflictor of wrath and anger. And this is pretty strong language. I mean, this demonstration of God's wrath and anger is not kind of a subtle kind of decision he makes to ultimately deal with the unfaithful. But this refers to violent passion, a very strong term.

In the Jameson, Fawcett, and Brown commentary, I quote, it would appear then that the more faithless we are, so much the more illustrious will the fidelity of God appear. And in that case, for him to take vengeance on us for our unfaithfulness would be, to speak as men profanely do, unrighteousness in God.

What are your thoughts about this? Does this commentary really do justice to what we're talking about here? One thing that comes to mind is the greater the light, the more you can see the darkness. Okay. So in terms of this verse, how then? The more that man is unrighteous, it demonstrates or establishes the righteousness of God. It's like night and day. Okay.

But here we're looking at a conflicting message, aren't we? Because in a sense, what the Jew is saying, that based on what Paul's saying, the fact that if God's grace and and faithfulness is so great to mankind, and the more we sin, the greater he is. Well, for the wrong reasons, right? I mean, we're looking for the Jew to look for a license to live a life that's unfaithful because of God's great grace and condemnation, and that's really the topic that's before us here.

And Paul indicates that he's speaking purely in a human way. I mean, he's kind of dealing with this concept from a very you know, colloquial aspect. This term, I speak in a human way, or what's the King James say here? It says, I speak as a man. According to the Robertson's word picture, as if to say, pardon me for this line of argument, it's kind of somewhat apologetic language. And the rabbis apparently often use this.

And this is, again, exemplified in Galatians 3.15. There are other uses in the New Testament of, I speak as a man, or, oh, by the way, pardon me for this line of argument. This really maybe reflects Paul's rabbinical training, the idea he's communicating with the Jew in a way that the Jewish rabbis, in fact, had learned to do. This is commonplace colloquial language for the time. So it provides, I think, an atmosphere of the potential informality of this kind of relationship that Paul's trying to communicate this point with the people to whom he's speaking.

Here I think Paul is putting the Jew in the position where they really were, in terms of this issue of God's righteousness versus man's unrighteousness. And if God is so willing to forgive men their sin, then therefore God is weak and men can just live a life of sin. God is so generous and willing to be merciful under all occasions, then why not just live a life of sin? So where the Jew finds him or herself is here.

They're on the earth. They're in sin. We'll get this. And this is a cycle. And as believers, can we not all relate to this? That we live in an earthly body, we're surrounded by sin, the cosmos, the world system is filled with unfaithfulness, deceitfulness, doubting God's truth. So this, in fact, is a cycle that ultimately is part of the human existence. And by the way, we have our own sin nature.

I don't need all these other things. I mean, you know, the idea of the monks, you know, being separated from the world system, thinking in some ways that they're more righteous or more spiritual to be separated from the world system. Clearly not true.

So we've got this kind of vicious cycle of human behavior. And then we've got this barrier. And the Jew is really, at least this Jew who's ingrained in the Jewish state at the time, and today in fact, ultimately is separated from this. So we've got everything Paul is relating to is the accomplishments at Calvary. But this behavior is really outside of the cross.

This is fun with PowerPoint. I couldn't figure out a way to get that diagram in without having this next section put in first. Anyway, there, the whole slide is complete. The first part of the slide is what you just saw. Now the second part is really God's truth about all of this can only be adequately and accurately portrayed through the eyes of the believer.

Calvary is everything. The whole Biblical text leads up to Calvary and ultimately after Calvary we in fact find that everything reflects back on it. So the Jew is steeped in tradition, steeped in formality, steeped in all of the things that's part of the Jewish faith and often misinterpreted. And it's clearly separated from God's truth.

In Romans 8, 20 and 21 we see this kind of portrayed in that for the creature was made subject to vanity or nothingness. not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Notice, who's doing the work here? Is it the creature? Then why are there so many doubting people?

I was in a cab in Washington. It doesn't make any difference, but I think it was on Friday on my way back to Orlando. The cab driver was an Iranian. I thought this was an interesting opportunity. I'd been in the United States for 29 years. trashing all world religion as being the source of men's problems. And I asked for his perception of the Middle East in terms of what was going on there and his simple answer was America had abandoned Saudi Arabia because that's where all the terrorists are coming from.

But anyway, the conversation got more interesting and so it's clear that he even denies the Muslim faith in which he was raised. There was no open door, I can assure you, to share the Lord Jesus Christ with this man, but we dealt some with the whole concept of world religion and this issue of the believer's eyes seems to be really very, very appropriately in a position within the church.

I mean, how do you reach someone who's been born into a Muslim family and in fact raised a Muslim And in fact, maybe living by faith, which to them is the only truth they've ever heard, quote-unquote. And we're in a position to have to reach out to them, just like Paul was to the Jew here, to manifest something that they have, number one, no interest in. And do we know, are even being called. I mean, God calls all men unto himself, right? was a dilemma for Paul as much as it was for me in the cab in Washington the other day talking to an Iranian cab driver who was angry at the whole world and religion was the reason. Keep in mind, not only the Muslim faith but Christianity too. He lumped them all together. What are your thoughts here about what Paul was facing?

Was this a battle that was potentially one that he could win or is he in a position of simply bringing truth? I don't know that that means we don't do it, but I think there has to be some Well, let's wax apologetically for a minute. What gives us the right to say that we have the truth? What gave Paul the right to say that he had the truth and the Jewish tradition, all the behaviors, the lifestyles, the beliefs were in fact wrong? And simply, he had the truth. That's what gave him the right. Right. Okay. And how could Paul be sure he had the truth? He meant the truth. Alright. And are we removed from that? In what sense? How about 2,000 years? Okay.

All right, so Craig, we have a Bible that we believe. We believe the writings. We believe the historical record as it exists. And so does the Muslim. So what makes us different in terms of the truth that we have versus the devout Muslim who thinks he or she has the truth? From man's perspective, I'd say absolutely nothing. But from God's perspective, we have the truth. But man is doubting that, as the Jewish leaders were at this time, that Paul is addressing, correct? It's a fallen world.

It's a work of the Spirit in each one of us. And ultimately, I guess, as we walk in grace and truth, our lives are really the message to the world around us, is it not? The Holy Spirit has got to enter that Iranian heart in some way and to cast doubt on the Muslim part or any other part and that there is a truth, a truth, the truth, not just any truth. I mean that's the only way. We can't convince them that we have the truth because they'll come back with many arguments. But the Holy Spirit has to do that, has to prepare them, any person.

And ultimately, how does the Holy Spirit go about doing that? And why is most of the world unsaved and never will be saved? What brought each one of us to salvation? What will bring these Jewish doubters to salvation as Paul was addressing them directly about their false interpretation of the lie, if you will? No answers.

All right. And faith is what? Thanks. Okay, Bill. Yeah, I mean, again, faith, very simplistically, is believing what God has revealed. Our belief is that this is truth. But the world, to a large extent, doubts that, right? And I would say, to a large extent, the world doubts the crucifixion, that that's a myth. And it's interesting how you can selectively look at history, isn't it, to decide what things in history you want to believe and what things you don't want to believe. But the unbelieving world accepts this as a lie.

But I would say to each one of us that as you examine yourself, let's accept the fact that there is a God. a holy, righteous, and just God. As we examine ourselves in relationship to this heavenly being, I think as we consider our lives, our thoughts, our deeds, and our lack of deeds, you can only come to one conclusion. And then the ultimate response in religion is, do you work to please God, or do you accept the free gift that He's given?

But every man on this earth knows that there's at least a downside, right? Don't you like it when you have a conversation with people and they say, well, there's the good part of man and the bad part, and they think the good part wins? But almost everybody acknowledges the bad part to some extent.

But there are a few things here, these habits that kind of get in the way. Anyway, I think that this section of Scripture just is one of many that just opens up this whole issue of how we relate to the world around us. Paul is relating to the very zealous and self-righteous Jew who's living by all the covenants of circumcision and beyond. And we, in fact, maybe don't run across this type of individual too much on our day-to-day walk, but we run into skeptics and doubters and people that think we're off the deep end.

Go ahead. Just counting the Bible and the Da Vinci Code. I think Vern's teaching the Da Vinci Code in his class on apologetics right now. Well, we could sit here as a fireside chat all the rest of the morning here and talk about these things. Let's move on with the text now.

The Amplified, really, in verse 6, really comes across very strongly in the King James's God Forbids, but the Amplified says, by no means, exclamation point, otherwise how could God judge the world? The issue here is that by no means is the same as God forbid, is the same as may it not be, is the same as far be it. There's lots of ways you can interpret this. This is used fairly frequently.

And this is the aorist tense middle voice. How would you define aorist tense and middle voice? Craig, you can't answer this. So what's aorist tense indicate? Is that something that's expectant? Something that's happened? typically something that's happened, something historic. It's been there, done that.

And the middle voice is what? There's passive and active, this is middle. Greg Middle Voice. Yeah, I was wondering if I'd get to speak. So the key part of this is actually the mood. It's optative. And when you've got optative mood, that's going to overshadow tense and other aspects of the verb. And all this is is just the most emphatic way that you can say, in a million years, it couldn't possibly be. So it's the mood that makes it. The middle voice is something kind of dealing within itself.

It's not to anyone else. You're not receiving it. You're not giving it. It's God himself who has this view. That's my understanding of the middle voice. It's really that this is his position and he's interpreting this for himself. In other words, it's never going to be. That's my best understanding of the middle voice.

It's not pointed to anyone directly, or is it in fact something you're receiving? It's something kind of acting in its own person or its own deity. Well, it's not indicative. I mean, the middle voice is something, again, that's not directed to anybody and it's not received. It's something that God himself is all about. And so his position is, Craig said better than this, never. Unacceptable.

26 times in the Bible, interestingly enough, 10 times in the Old Testament, the Hebrew is something very similar to this. So this, God forbid, is something we see a lot in Romans. And we're going to see it again, particularly in Romans 6, when we get there in terms of continuing in sin after man comes to a faithful relationship. Otherwise, in other words, by no means, Paul emphatically says, by no means, this is not really the appropriate response to this issue. then goes on to say otherwise, or for then, now, or since, if that were true.

So he's kind of putting it as a conditional. Could God judge the world? Now, could God judge the world is importantly indicative, meaning it's factual, he will, and it's future tense, so he's going to judge the world, right? And it's active. He is the one who's judging.

So this is ultimately what's going to follow this unbelief. So which judgment are we really talking about? Is it the cross? Could Paul be reflecting back on Calvary and its implications for the ultimate Jew to become saved, that the judgment is at Calvary, and ultimately that will be pervasive in what follows? or is in fact one of the other great judgments.

Hal has reviewed those for us previously. I didn't bring that section as far as the lessons today, but we're looking at the tribulation, we're looking at the final judgment of this earth. It has to be future from the cross, doesn't it? That's why I put that arrow in. But the cross relates to it all, does it not? Because the ultimate judgment really took place at Calvary. But yet the judgment which is being spoken about here must be future because the verb implies that it's future. But yet I think we have to relate that what follows related to what occurred before and was unaccepted.

Remember, Hebrews 2.14, and this is not necessarily anything but tangential, but Hebrews 2.14 indicates that Satan was really conquered at Calvary. And if you think about that for the believer, I mean, before God, Satan has no bearing on the believer, right? I mean, we can think he's influencing our day-to-day behavior, but there's now no condemnation of those who are in Christ Jesus. So, the cross is really the defining moment of all time, is it not?

I mean, everything that precedes it leads up to it, and everything that occurs subsequently depends on it. But yet, God's active and future judgment really relates to this earth. And ultimately, sin can only bear itself for a period, and then it will be judged definitively. Keep in mind, the Jew is an earthly citizen. They operate on this earth. Heavenly things really were not particularly important to them. it's the earth and everything related to it.

Now, we see other opportunities for God's judgment to take place based on multiple scriptures, and I just have a few listed here. Psalms 9, 8, And he shall judge the world with righteousness, and he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness. Psalm 96, 13, For he cometh to judge the earth, he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth."

And I think a very, very relevant verse is, if we can get it to come up here, come on, Acts 17.31, "...because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." And look at this, "...of this he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Back to the point I was just making. The cross really is the reason why the world would be judged because most of the world has not believed. And Christ's resurrection really ultimately is the forerunner of the truth of God's eternal judgment on this earth.

Romans 3.7, for if the truth of God has increased through my lie, amen. Keep in mind this concept here of, gee, if God is so forgiving of sin and we ultimately see him as being very, very merciful, then why not continue in sin that we should in fact accept that behavior and make it appropriate for our time here on earth. Then Paul goes on to say, for if the truth of God has increased through my lie to his glory, why am I also judged to be a sinner?

So he's trying now to communicate with them on a very kind of earthly level in terms of his relationship to them and to God. So this refers back to verse 5 that we looked at a few minutes ago. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we then say? Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance? So that's the concept we're dealing with here.

For if, but if, it's interesting if you look at that, back I looked at about 8 or 10 versions. The versions are 50-50 split. And the question I have, does it make any difference? So if we started verse 7, for if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, or but if, is there any difference in the way we would interpret that verse if we use but versus for? Anybody think there's a difference?

My point here is that either way, it's a license to sin. I mean, we're dealing with the same type of interpretation. But, or for, both gives ultimately the person who's reading this verse an appropriate conclusion that the lie is in fact true. That I have a license to sin, and ultimately God's righteousness is portrayed because of my sin.

Now, they mean in effect that's partially true, but not from the perspective that this is being brought across here. So, God's truth versus Paul's lie reflects back on his position in verse 4 that Hal covered last week. 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. So again, let God be true, but every man a liar.

So in effect, that's the conflict before us. Let's just reflect a little bit on God's truth. When you think of God's truth, what things come to mind? Verse 7, for the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie. If you had to describe God's truth, how would you describe it? Harry, what are your thoughts? If somebody asked you this afternoon what's God's truth, how would you respond to that? He's a just God. Alright, so His truth is wrapped up in justice. Other thoughts about God's truth? I would make a statement that God's truth is probably more important than any other aspect of God.

Challenge that, okay? How? The word is. Yeah, it just seemed to me that the entire word is truth. Okay. Obviously, the manifestation of that is the word Jesus Christ. I am the way, the truth. I'm just wondering here, in terms of Paul's lie, is it possible that in verse 7 Paul is proclaiming the truth, but those that are hearing it, the hearers, are saying he's lying? Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, I thought that was understood, but maybe we need to clarify that point. I mean, Paul's lie is not he's lying, it's that their perception is that he's lying. So they said he's a liar, like we've gone through before in Corinthians, where the Corinthians were saying he was a liar. So it's the same kind of thing. Right, and that's why Paul is responding, then, why am I called a sinner? Why am I being judged as a sinner? I mean, if I'm lying, you're perceiving that I'm lying. So if I'm lying, then why would I be judged as a sinner?

I mean, there's the contrast. I mean, Christ is the way, the truth and the life. The truth is a concept that I think involves justice and love. Harry, I think that justice is wrapped up in truth for sure, but love is too. Mercy, grace, all of it's wrapped up in truth. Truth to me is the trump card. Truth is the issue.

Remember in 2 Corinthians 4.2 we remembered what was established and exhibited was the truth of God's Word. And so I got saved at age 30 because I realized that before God I was a sinner and ultimately His truth became evident to me about who He was and who I was or who I wasn't. Isn't that part of the truth, recognizing that you're a sinner? I think that's all wrapped up into it for sure. You don't come to Christ by doing good works, or thinking that we're partly good and partly not good.

Shortly before verse 7, Paul's saying that he and we is Jews. Yes, I think so. Shortly after verse 7, Paul's saying that he and we is Jews. Are you saying that in verse 7 when he says I, he's talking about Paul in particular rather than a representative Jew? Well, I think it could be a representative Jew. I hadn't looked at 7 the way that you just said, Hal. And I thought it went with 5 pretty well.

So 5 is saying, our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And then in 7, he's saying, well, if my lie shows the truth of God, I didn't take it as the Jews' perceptions of Paul's expression of the truth, but rather them trying to weasel out, saying, well, God said we were going to be sinners and unrighteous. We're sinners and we're unrighteous, and so we're showing that he was right, so that's good, right? Why would we be judged for that? I think that question's directed to you, Hal. It's directed to the group, we can... You're the teacher. No. That makes me the most humble, actually, by definition.

The way I was interpreting it was the way Hal was, that my lie was really their interpretation, that Paul was being inconsistent with that theme that you just articulated. But I think the idea yet, am I also judged as a sinner? I would think that anyone taking that position then would need to come to the same conclusion, would they not? So therefore, he may be the representative Jew in the way this verse is being articulated. And what's the conclusion? Well, you're going to see it in verse 8, are you not?

That he's being judged as a sinner. He said he was judged as a sinner. And the question is, in verse 7, who is he judged by? Who's doing the judging in verse 7? Yeah, and at the end of verse 8, Craig, just to skip ahead briefly, whose condemnation is just is a statement, not a question.

I mean, so this, the result of this perception is that evil, we should do evil, that good may come, is really a wrong perception. We are appropriately condemned in that position. I think that supports the position that we've just been discussing in 7. Do you have a different view on this then? Only in who's doing the talking in 7, I think. 5 and 7 to me look to be saying the same thing.

They're trying to easel out of it by saying, well, you said we were going to be bad. We're bad. So why in the world would you judge us? All we're doing is showing that what you say is right. And verse 8 says that's nonsense. You still get judged. Right. Just to grossly simplify it. Okay. So as we reflect on God's truth, and we could have a whole lesson just on God's truth in the discussion, because God's truth is really, I think, what needs to prevail. And again, His love and justice and glory are all wrapped up in the truth.

But nevertheless, I mean, Romans 15, 8, now, I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the Father. So that's very Jewish-directed, the circumcision. And as we learned earlier a few weeks ago, the circumcision that God was looking for wasn't in the flesh. That was an outward sign of an inward change, just like baptism is for the church. The circumcision that Paul was addressing that the Lord wants is a circumcision of the heart, is it not?

And then in 3 John 1, 3 and 4, a couple of verses that I just love. For I rejoiced greatly when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. And John said, I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. And boy, that's what Paul was trying to do here, is to really show what the truth really was in the midst of the doubting Jew, the traditional Jew.

All right. We have a machine that's not doing well here. Let me go ahead and advance it over here. So present passive indicative, factual at the current time, and Paul is being judged. And in John, I think that this verse kind of relates a little bit.

Now, we know that God heareth not sinners, but if any man be a worship of God and doeth his will, him he heares. So I think we see that that very much relates to being in a position to accept that truth. And I really like what David Guzik had said in a commentary, and I quoted him directly here.

The tendency of man to twist the glorious free gift of God and Christ into a supposed license to sin. It's exactly what we're talking about here. is perhaps the zenith of a sin, even beyond the depravity of the pagan, which we covered in Chapter 1, beyond the hypocrisy of the moralist in Chapter 2, 1 through 5, or the false confidence of the Jew, which we covered in previous weeks and covered to some extent last week and today. I think that's a profound insight. So what again David Guzik is saying, the tendency of man to twist the free gift of God into a supposed license to sin. is perhaps the zenith of his sin. Zenith meaning the epitome of his sin. Sorry about this.

So, Romans 3.8, Darby, and not according as we are injuriously charged, and according as some affirm that we say, let us practice evil things, that good ones may come, that position is inappropriate.

There are two lines of thought here. The first is the excuses brought forth by the unbeliever. That's one thought. The unbeliever would say that, you know, I'm living a life of sin. I don't need, you know, God's forgiveness. And that line of thought is really part of this verse.

And the second is the accusation that Paul affirms that if we do evil, that good will come. Oh good, we got it. Of course, the judgment for either would have been just. The judgment is for the unbeliever, and there's a judgment too for those that would affirm that doing evil will produce good.

So if you will, this is the lie personified. And I think even for the body of believers, the church, we have what Jude had to say. And in verse 4, Jude 1 says, for there are certain men who've crept in unawares, who were foreordained of old for this condemnation. They could have been Jews, maybe, maybe not. ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Now here's the moral or alternative principle that Peter has brought forth.

Have a good conscience that wherein as they speak evil of you as of evildoers, they who falsely accuse may be ashamed by your good manner of life in Christ. For it is better if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing." Now keep in mind, the unbelieving world is going to criticize us for our evil-doing. But our evil-doing is not because we're begging God's mercy and want it, because we're doing evil to get His great grace. We're doing evil because of the power of the flesh. But we're forgiven. There's no condemnation. And if that's really not a tremendous rest in peace. So I've got a couple of closing questions for you that you can consider.

Is this issue that increasing sin brings increasing grace relevant for Gentiles who are unbelieving? Is this issue relevant for New Testament believers? I mean, again, we're looking at it in context for the Jew. And do you ever find yourself living this lie yourself and think of examples that may exist within your own life where in fact we continue a behavior or an attitude or a thought process that ultimately is saying, well, I'm forgiven. And that becomes cyclic in nature. So we see the same type of cycle that exists for the Jewish population on the earth in sin as a vicious cycle.

But the difference is that we have no barrier now. to where it's all been taken care of. And I think this is when truth really becomes real. So, what do you think? Is this principle of more sin, more grace something that is lived out in today's world by believers? Yeah, I think some people would take this position. And so how do we deal with that when that occurs?

Well, we get back to the truth and what it really represents. The truth is that not only were our sins forgiven, yes, but in fact, we've been crucified with Christ and have been risen with newness of life. You know, what we're going to be studying in Romans chapter 7 is the fact that Paul knew all that. But what he did not have was the Spirit-led life. And that's as much a part of faith as any other aspect of our faith. I mean, our faith carries us well into our sins being forgiven.

That's, quote, elementary. Necessary, but elementary. The second step of faith is realizing that we've been crucified with Christ and have been born again into a newness of life. I don't know about you, but I can intellectualize that fine by reading the scripture and believing what God's revealed.

Now that third part is the tough one, isn't it? Allowing to take a step in faith that that rest and peace that God's created is allowing us to be vehicles of His truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that's the challenge. And perhaps six months from now we'll be getting into that, right? As we look at our schedule in terms of the way we're approaching Romans. All right.

Hal, would you close us in prayer, please? And I thought, we are just so thankful for the truth. And we thank you for the written word, which is your truth. We thank you, Father, for the living word, the Lord Jesus Christ, which is, who is the truth. And Father, we pray that each of us may be identified through your word, that your purpose in our life to conform to the image of a wonderful world and safety would be accomplished.