The Unchanging Truth

Guest (Male): Welcome to The Unchanging Truth, the verse-by-verse Bible teaching ministry of Dr. Jerod Gilcher, lead pastor of Christ Community Bible Church in Arlington, Texas. Through the living and active Word of God, The Unchanging Truth exists to encourage your soul, transform your life, and help you trust and treasure Christ as redeemer, savior, and king. Now, opening the scriptures and proclaiming the truth that never changes, here is Dr. Jerod Gilcher.

Dr. Jerod Gilcher: All of it was worthless. Paul says, "That’s not true, and that’s not what I said." Look at verse 2. "What are the advantages of a Jew? They are great in every respect." See his clarification? "For on the one hand, they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Do you see it? Paul is saying, "No, no, it's not what I said. In every possible way, being a Jew was advantageous and profitable."

You were chosen by God. You were adopted by God. You had covenants with God. You were chosen to be His channel of blessing to the ends of the earth. How much more advantageous can you get? But notice, what is the particular advantage that Paul mentions? He only mentions one. It kind of sounds like he's going to mention others, but he doesn't need to. Look what he says: "For starters, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God," meaning what? Meaning the 39 books of the Old Testament. God gave truth to Israel and to nobody else.

It's incredible. Holy Scripture given to them to read and study and treasure and proclaim. I hope you see the implications of why Paul mentions this. For instance, here's a few questions for you to think through. Did God choose Israel and reveal His Word to them? Yes. And did God make glorious covenants and promises in His Word to Israel? Yes. And are those covenants binding and unconditional? Yes. And were there many Jews in history who had authentic faith in Yahweh and got saved? Yes. And did God promise in the future a glorious kingdom for Israel? And will they, at the end of the age, according to Romans 11:26, all Israel be saved? Yes. Do you see his point?

Your calling is still good. All you've got to do is read the text and know that it's true. Part two of his clarification: God is still faithful. God is still faithful. The opponent is angry and defensive. He changes the subject. Look at verse 3. "What then? If some disbelieved, if some did not believe, their unfaithfulness will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?" Now, technically, that's not an objection; that's Paul's answer to the objection. But you can tell what the objection is, can't you?

Paul has said in chapter 2 that the nation of Israel is guilty and condemned. You with me? They take that to mean Paul thinks that God has canceled His promises to Israel. Their response is, "Paul, your theology makes God look bad. Your theology calls the faithfulness of God into question because you say God is done with His promises to Israel," which was a common accusation of Paul, to which he replies, "That's not true, and that's not what I said." Look again at verse 3 and how he challenges that.

The unbelief of some Jews doesn't cancel His plan for the Jews, does it? Of course not. Just because some didn't believe, that doesn't mean that God is going to cancel His plan for the nation as a whole. That's a logical absurdity; that's not going to happen. And to prove it, well, here's the question: can God be unfaithful? Look at verse 4. "May it never be! But let God be true and every man a liar," meaning God will keep every single promise He made to Israel, He will keep every single promise He made to us, and anyone who says otherwise will be proved to be a liar. That's his argument.

And to prove his point, he quotes from the Bible. If you look in your Bible, sometimes different versions will indent Old Testament quotations or they'll put them in italics. Notice what he does there. Paul quotes scripture to back up his point: "As it is written, that You may be justified in Your words and overcome when You are judged." You may be thinking, what does that even mean? What is he saying? Well, believe it or not, that proves that God is faithful to His Word. God is faithful to His promises, even when His people sin against Him.

Because do you know what Paul just quoted there? Where did that text come from? Look in your margins or in the column somewhere, cross-references. Where did that text come from? It came from Psalm 51. Do you remember what Psalm 51 is about? David's brokenhearted repentance for his adultery with Bathsheba. And then he arranged the murder of her husband, and then he lied about it, and he tried to cover it up.

And this text here is absolutely perfect because it proves that even when God must judge His people for sin or unbelief, it doesn't derail His plan or cancel His promises. Does that make sense? Think about it. God punished David, did He not? Did He forgive David? Yes. Did He restore David? Yes. Did He keep every promise He made to David, including the arrival of the Messiah from his line? Yes. And the point is, God is faithful to His Word and will never go back on His promise, even in the face of sin.

That's good news. Maybe you feel like you have pushed God too far. You have sinned, and maybe sinned in a very particular way, too often, too much, and you have exhausted the bank of mercy and grace on your behalf. This text, complicated though it is, is a way of saying that's not true. That's not true if you're really in Christ, if you're really in Him. There's no such thing as exhausting the river of mercy for you because that is paid for. God will keep His promise. But that does bring us to part three: sin is still bad. Sin is still bad.

You've all been in arguments before. Some of those you have lost. The thing about arguments is that when people lose the argument, and if you've been on the losing end of an argument, you know you've done this, you begin to say the craziest things. You start saying crazy things, just absurd, illogical, emotionally heated things that you don't actually believe, but you're saying it because you're panicked and you're cornered and you're losing and you want to silence your opponent.

Well, that's what the Jewish objector does to Paul, only he actually believes in what he says. It's the pinnacle of theologically absurd. Look at verses 5 and 6. This is the objector: "But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?" Then Paul interjects: "The God who inflicts anger is not unrighteous, is He? I am speaking in human fashion. May it never be!" Stop there. I know that sounds jumbled.

But picture again the debate, heated and intense and back and forth. The objector lashes out in verse 5: "If our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?" Do you hear his argument? Do you hear what he's subtly implying? He's trying to be careful, but he's saying something very interesting. They just heard Paul quote Psalm 51 about God's forgiveness of David, right? And now they say, "Ah, see, Paul, see? You say God is faithful and will keep His promise. That's true; He will."

"But Paul, you admitted that God forgave David's sin and kept His promises to him. That's true; He did. Which means, Paul," and here is the faulty Jewish claim, "our sin is an opportunity for God to show His grace." Or the way they put it here, our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. That's the argument. In other words, do you hear what they're saying? "God is righteous and faithful to His Word, and all our sin does is give God an opportunity to show how righteous and faithful He is. You said it yourself; King David is the proof."

I don't know if you can read between the lines of what they're saying here, but what they're saying is: we do God a favor by sinning. The more we sin, the more God gets glory for forgiving our sin. Therefore, if God condemns us Jews for our sin, then that ruins God's very opportunity to bring Himself glory through our sin. We sin more; we get more grace. That’s literally the argument that they're making, which is just nuts, isn't it? Because it means they were both legalists and antinomians at the same time.

It's incredible to me. They were harsh and critical and legalistic on the one hand, trying to keep the law to earn favor with God, but then when it was to their advantage, they were antinomian: grace is a license to sin. It's crazy; it's spiritually schizophrenic. And I'll just say it's exactly how many people think in the church today, especially in cases of church discipline. "That's really harsh. That's really mean. To confront sin? To expose sin? To call them to repentance? To say their name in front of the church?" Matthew 18.

I've literally had people say this to me: "We shouldn't confront them; we should be gracious to them and love them." And I agree with that. But that statement seems to assume that confronting sin is not showing love. At the end of the day, I'm just going to be honest: lurking behind that pious-sounding statement is nothing less than an abuse of grace and permission to sin. It's exactly what the opponent says, which is why Paul blurts out in verse 5, "God who inflicts anger is not unrighteous, is He?"

In other words, wait, hold on. You think God is unrighteous because He hates sin and punishes sin? Wait, you think that? And they say, "Yes! Yes, God is gracious," they say. "God is merciful," they say. "He accepts us as we are. He knows we're broken people, and so our sin is a chance for God to reveal His grace." In other words, it’s Romans 6:1: "Let us sin that grace may abound." And in verse 6, Paul says, "May it never be! That's crazy! That's crazy!"

Look what he says, verse 6: "Otherwise, how shall God judge the world?" In other words, if it's harsh of God to judge sin as you say, well, then where does it all end? How can He judge anybody? If that’s true, then He can't even judge a wicked world since the only right thing for God to do is to forgive sin and not punish sin. Do you see? That's the argument. And you just sense, don't you? You just sense deep beneath this seeming compassion and tolerance for sin is that they had lost their sense of the majesty of God, haven't they?

This was not a God unfathomable and intolerably vast. This was not a supreme and sovereign God who changes people's lives and demands their allegiance, but a weak, passive, mushy God who didn't have the power to make a holy people. I've got to ask: is there anything like this in your life, in your theology, in your thinking? Do you use the grace of God as a buffer for sin? "It's all right. I can do this. God will forgive me."

Or, like these Jews, do you think God is unrighteous to judge sin? Do you think the holiness of God is the ugly side of God? Or do you think it's wrong for churches to confront sin or call sinning members to repentance? Let me ask you this: to which do you gravitate towards more: the legalist or the antinomian? The legalist says, "God likes me more because I keep more rules, extra rules." The antinomian says, "God likes me more because I'm not a legalist."

Which are you? Or maybe do you see in yourself a little bit of both, just like these Jews? Because if you love and believe the gospel, beloved, these are the implications of the gospel you believe. And in verse 7, the objector tries one more time to spar with Paul, but his punch is weak. It's fatigued. It's the same worn-out old silly objection. He says, notice what he says: "But if the truth of God abounded to His glory by my lie, why am I still being judged as a sinner?"

Do you see the drift here? The tactic? "If I lie, the truthfulness of God is more clearly displayed. In other words, my sin is just an opportunity for God to show the wonders of His character. It gives Him glory against the backdrop of my sin, and when God forgives that sin, it abounds to His glory. Therefore, Paul, your theology is harsh. It is mean, Paul. If my sin brings about God's glory, why are you still condemning me as a sinner? Why are you on my case about repentance and sin when I do the very thing that results in His glory?" It's just twisted. It's backwards. It's weird.

And people say this, at least a sanitized, protected, careful version of this, especially, again, in church discipline situations. "If we just show them grace and not treat them like a sinner," which means don't talk about their sin, "just let it go, then God will get glory as a God of forgiveness, and we can pat ourselves on the back as a non-legalistic people." But what is that on so many levels but a failure to understand the nature of grace, the nature of God, the nature of holiness, the nature of the church, the power of the gospel?

The power of Christ to transform a people from the inside out. This is what the gospel is! And Paul, agitated, cries out in verse 8, "And why not say, even as we are slandered by some as saying, 'Let us do evil that good may come'? Their condemnation is just." Do you see what he does there? It’s tricky because he interrupts himself. But the point he’s making is: look, if you’re going to say things like, "Well, God’s truth abounds to His glory by my lie," if you’re going to say, "My unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God," why don’t you just be really honest with what you’re saying? "Let us do evil that good may come."

"The more we sin, the more grace we get." That's what you mean, isn't it? And that's crazy. John Bunyan said this about sin: "Sin is the dare of God's justice, the rape of His mercy, the jeer of His patience, the slight of His power, and the contempt of His love." That's exactly right, which is why at the end of verse 8, Paul says, "Their condemnation is just." Those who say that kind of thing will get exactly what they deserve because they did not trust in the Son who bore the curse for sinners.

And I do love how Paul interrupts himself. Did you know that? He interrupts himself there. "Why not say, just like people accuse us of saying, why not say, 'Let us do evil that good may come'?" In other words, are you kidding me? Are you for real right now? You're saying the very thing that we apostles are accused of, namely that grace is a license for sin. That's exactly the argument you're making, and that's what the apostles were oftentimes accused of.

But that’s not the teaching of the Bible. And the point that Paul’s making is both clear and complex, and it is what makes the gospel profound. God has made a way to find sinners not guilty without dropping the charges. I mean, He can’t not punish sin; the penalty for sin must be paid in full. But God, in His love, has made a way where sinners don’t have to bear that punishment, that a substitute can be provided who could bear the wrath for that sin in their place. One who was fully sinless man, one who was fully perfect God, namely Jesus, and then He executed His wrath on that substitute.