The Advantage of Being Jewish:
The Objection That Paul Attacked God’s Promises

Romans 3:3-4

³ For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? ⁴ Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”

(Verse 3-4) - The next objection Paul anticipated and confronted was that his teaching abrogated God’s promises to Israel. As any student of the Old Testament knows, God’s promises to His chosen people are numerous. How then, could Paul maintain that it was possible for a Jew not to be secure in those promises?

Paul’s answer reflected both the explicit and implicit teaching of the Jewish Scriptures themselves. An explicit teaching is a teaching from the OT that is stated in so many words in the text of the Bible.  An implicit teaching is a teaching of the OT that is no less true, but is not stated in so many words in the text of the Bible.  God had never promised that any individual Jew, no matter how pure his physical lineage from Abraham, or from any of the other great saints of the Old Testament, could claim security in God’s promises apart from repentance and personal faith in God, resulting in obedience from the heart. Isaiah 55:6-7 provides a good illustration of an invitation to such obedient faith: “Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.”

As in the passage from Amos 3:2 mentioned in another devotional, many of God’s greatest promises were accompanied by the severest warnings. And most of the promises were conditional, based on His people’s faith and obedience. The few unconditional promises He made were to the nation of Israel as a whole, not to individual Jews (see, e.g., Gen. 12:3; Isa. 44:1-5; Zech. 12:10).

For what if some did not believe? - “What then? or what follows? If it be admitted that some of the nation did not believe, does it not follow that the faithfulness of God in his promises will fail?” The points of the objection are these:

(1)  The apostle had maintained that the nation was sinful Rom. 2; that is, that they had not obeyed or believed God.

(2)  This, the objector for the time admits or supposes in relation to some of them. But,

(3)  He asks whether this does not involve a consequence which is not admissible, that God is unfaithful.

Did not the fact that God chose them as his people, and entered into covenant with them, imply that the Jews should be kept from perdition? It was evidently their belief that all Jews would be saved, and this belief they grounded on his covenant with their fathers. The doctrine of the apostle (Rom. 2) would seem to imply that in certain respects they were on a level with the Gentile nations; that if they sinned, they would be treated just like the pagan; and hence, they asked of what value was the promise of God? Had it not become vain and trivial?

Make the faith - The word “faith” here evidently means the “faithfulness” or “fidelity of God to his promises.” (Compare Matt. 13:23: 2 Tim. 3:10; Hos. 2:20).

Of none effect - Destroy it; or prevent him from fulfilling his promises. The meaning of the objection is, that the fact supposed, that the Jews would become unfaithful and be lost, would imply that God had failed to keep his promises to the nation; or that he had made promises which the result showed he was not able to perform.

The apostle therefore agreed in part with his accusers.  His opponents were perfectly right in defending the Lord’s integrity. No matter how men respond to His promises, He is absolutely faithful to keep His Word.

Though certainly not intentionally, the idea in covenant theology that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan of redemption assumes God’s faithlessness in keeping His unconditional promises to Israel. Because of Israel’s rejection of Jesus Christ as her Messiah, God has postponed the fulfillment of His promise to redeem and restore Israel as a nation. But He has not (and because of His holy nature He could not) reneged on that promise. His prediction, for example, that He will one day “pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced” (Zech. 12:10) could not possibly apply to the church. And because such a renewal has never happened in the history of Israel, either the prediction is false or it is yet to be fulfilled.

Later in the epistle Paul strongly affirms that God has not rejected His people Israel (Rom. 11:1). A few verses later he declares, “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.’” Lest he be misunderstood as referring to the church as the new Israel, Paul adds, “From the standpoint of the gospel they [Jews] are enemies for your [Christians’] sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (vv. 25-29).

The national salvation of Israel is as inevitable as God’s promises are irrevocable. But that future certainty gives individual Jews no more present guarantee of being saved than the most pagan Gentile.

The mistake of Paul’s accusers was in believing that God’s unconditional promises to Israel applied to all individual Jews at all times. But as Paul shows earlier in 9:6-7, when he writes: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: ‘through Isaac your descendants will be named.’”

The accusers were right in contending that God cannot break His word. If the blessings of a promise failed to materialize it was because His people did not believe and obey the conditions of the promise. But their unbelief could not prevent the salvation which God would ultimately bring to the promised nation.

But an even deeper truth was that, contrary to the thinking of most Jews, salvation was never offered by God on the basis of the heritage, ceremony, good works, or any basis other than that of faith. Paul therefore asks rhetorically, “The fact that Jews who did not believe forfeited their personal right to God’s promised blessings and barred themselves from the inheritance of God’s kingdom will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?” His salvation will come to Israel some day when all Israel will be saved.

Answering his own question, he exclaims, May it never be! The phrase me genoito (may it never be) was the strongest negative Greek expression and usually carried the connotation of impossibility. “Of course God cannot be unfaithful in His promises or in any other way,” Paul was saying. The sense is, “let not this by any means be supposed.” This is the answer of the apostle, showing that no such consequence followed from his doctrines; and that “if” any such consequence should follow, the doctrine should be at once abandoned, and that every man, no matter who, should be rather esteemed false than God.

The veracity of God was a great first principle, which was to be held, whatever might be the consequence. This implies that the apostle believed that the fidelity of God could be maintained in strict consistency with the fact that any number of the Jews might be found to be unfaithful, and be cast off. The apostle has not entered into an explanation of this, or shown how it could be, but it is not difficult to understand how it was. The promise made to Abraham, and the fathers, was not unconditional and absolute, that all the individual Jews should be saved. It was implied that they were to be obedient; and that if they were not, they would be cast off; (Gen. 18:19). Though the apostle has not stated it here, yet he has considered it at length in another part of this Epistle, and showed that it was not only consistent with the original promise that a part of the Jews should be found unfaithful, and be east off, but that it had actually occurred according to the prophets; (Rom. 10:16-21; 11). Thus, the fidelity of God was preserved; at the same time that it was a matter of fact that no small part of the nation was rejected and lost.

Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar. If every human being who ever lived declared that God is faithless, God would be found true and every man who testified against Him would be found a liar. Let God be esteemed true and faithful, whatever consequence may follow. This was a first principle, and should be now, that God should be believed to be a God of truth, whatever consequence it might involve. How happy would it be, if all people would regard this as a fixed principle, a matter not to be questioned in their hearts, or debated about, that God is true to his word! How much doubt and anxiety would it save professing Christians; and how much error would it save among sinners! Amidst all the agitations of the world, all conflicts, debates, and trials, it would be a fixed position where every man might find rest, and which would do more than all other things to allay the tempests and smooth the agitated waves of human life.

But every man a liar - Though every man and every other opinion should be found to be false. Of course this included the apostle and his reasoning; and the expression is one of those which show his magnanimity and greatness of soul. It implies that every opinion which he and all others held; every doctrine which had been defended; should be at once abandoned, if it implied that God was false. It was to be assumed as a primary principle in all religion and all reasoning, that if a doctrine implied that God was not faithful, it was of course a false doctrine. This showed his firm conviction that the doctrine which he advanced was strictly in accordance with the veracity of the divine promise. What a noble principle is this! How strikingly illustrative of the humility of true piety, and of the confidence which true piety places in God above all the deductions of human reason! And if all people were willing to sacrifice their opinions when they appeared to impinge on the veracity of God; if they started back with instinctive shuddering at the very supposition of such a lack of fidelity in him; how soon would it put an end to the boastings of error, to the pride of philosophy, to lofty dictation in religion! No man with this feeling could be for a moment a universalist; and none could be an infidel.  This can almost be viewed as a summary statement concerning unbelievers – they esteem their own opinion over and above the stated opinions and commands of God.  We might also observe that this could be said to be the root of all church dissention and troubles – people are more concerned with what they think than they are about what God has said!  If we accept the bible as foundational and the faithfulness of God to His Word as axiomatic (as a given beyond dispute) and set ourselves to absolutely following after those principles we will avoid a lot of problems.

Summoning Scripture as he regularly did, Paul quotes from the great penitential psalm of David, Israel’s most illustrious and beloved king, from whose throne the Messiah Himself would some day reign. As it is written, “That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and mightest prevail when Thou art judged” (see Ps. 51:4). Because God is perfect and is Himself the measure of goodness and truth, His Word is its own verification and His judgment its own justification. It is utter folly to suppose that the Lord of heaven and earth might not prevail against the sinful, perverted judgment that either man or Satan could make against Him.

As it is written – To confirm the sentiment which he had just advanced and to show that it accorded with the spirit of religion as expressed in the Jewish writings, the apostle appeals to the language of David, uttered in a state of deep penitence for past transgressions. Of all quotations ever made, this is one of the most beautiful and most happy. In context of the passage cited, David was overwhelmed with grief; he saw his crime to be awful; he feared the displeasure of God, and trembled before him. Yet “he held it as a fixed, indisputable principle that” God was right. This he never once thought of calling in question. He had sinned against God, God only; and he did not once think of calling in question the fact that God was just altogether in reproving him for his sin, and in pronouncing against him the sentence of condemnation.  Men might take a great lesson from David and receive the verdict of the Scriptures concerning their true nature to thei hearts and thus, take a giant step on the path to salvation.

That thou mightest be justified – “That thou mightest be regarded as just or right”, or, “that it may appear or be demonstrated that God is not unjust”. This does not mean that David had sinned against God for the purpose of justifying him, but that he now clearly saw that his sin had been so directly against him, and so aggravated, that God was right in his sentence of condemnation.

In thy sayings – “In what thou hast spoken”; that is, “in thy sentence of condemnation; in thy words in relation to this offence”. It may help us to understand this, to remember that the psalm was written immediately after Nathan, at the command of God, had gone to reprove David for his crime; (see the title of the psalm.) God, by the mouth of Nathan, had expressly condemned David for his crime. To this expression of condemnation David doubtless refers by the expression “in thy sayings;” (see 2 Sam. 12:7-13).  It is interesting that Nathan was the voice, but the words David heard were from the mouth of God!  This is the office of the Prophet at its purest example.  This is precisely what the OT prophet was there to do (and which they did) – they were to speak the words of God to God’s people.  We also see, in David, a beautiful example of how the people of God are to respond to God’s prophetic utterances – that is by receiving them and submitting to their verdict in our lives. 

And mightest overcome - In the Hebrew, “mightest be pure,” or “mightest be esteemed pure”, or just. The word which the Septuagint and the apostle have used, “mightest overcome,” is sometimes used with reference to litigations or trials in a court of justice. He that was accused and acquitted, or who was adjudged to be innocent, might be said to overcome, or to gain the cause. The expression is thus used here. As if there were a trial between David and God, God would overcome; that is, would be esteemed pure and righteous in his sentence condemning the crime of David.

When thou art judged - The Hebrew is, “when thou judgest;” that is, in thy judgment pronounced on this crime. The Greek may also be in the middle voice as well as the passive, and may correspond, therefore, in meaning precisely with the Hebrew. The Syriac renders it, “when they (that is, people) shall judge thee.” The meaning, as expressed by David, is, that God is to be esteemed right and just in condemning people for their sins, and that a true penitent, that is, a man placed in the best circumstances to form a proper estimate of God, will see this, though it should condemn himself. The meaning of the expression in the connection in which Paul uses it, is, that it is to be held as a fixed, unwavering principle, that God is right and true, whatever consequences it may involve; whatever doctrine it may overthrow; or whatever man it may prove to be a liar.

We need to take care not to imply here that God is subject to the judgments of men.  He is not subject to them in any real and binding sense.  However, it is true that men make such judgments, unjustly and improperly all the time.  Men set themselves up as the judges of God frequently and use their understanding of His actions as a justification for their sinful rebellion frequently.  This is highly improper and, in fact, is a further demonstration of the wickedness of their hearts and their predisposition to reject His mercy and of the enmity that is present between them and their God.  What men ought to do is to hear the pronouncement of God by means of the Word and truly listen and consider it, submit to it, and be the better for that submission.

I need to be sure that my preaching calls men to hear and to submit to the Gospel and, indeed, to all of the Word of God as God has intended.