'Far be the thought' is perhaps a better way of understanding the expression "God forbid", used by Paul on ten occasions in the Roman epistle, once to the Corinthians and three times in his letter to the Galatians. As a figure of speech it does not so much express repugnance (as its modern use might suggest), but rather the moral impossibility of the proposal that prompted its reply. Let's look closely at the first use of the term in Romans, as there is a structure in Paul's argument that he repeats throughout the epistle.
Romans 3.4
Having pointed out the divine favour shown to the Jews in entrusting them with the oracles of God (Rom 3.2), Paul assumes an objection will be raised by his Jewish readers. The objection is "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (v 3). We might paraphrase the verse in this way: 'If, as is the case, many of the Jews have shown a total lack of faith in response to God's favour, does that mean God's faithfulness to them is to be doubted?' The very idea of God being unfaithful to His promise is what prompts the reply 'Far be the thought'. The objection is impossible in the light of the character of God, and Paul quotes David to confirm it. "Before Thee, before Thee solely, have I sinned, and committed this evil before Thy sight: that Thou mayest be justified in Thy sentence, Thou mayest be clear in Thy judgment" (Ps 51.4, Helen Spurrell¹). Paul summarises David's words by saying "… let God be true, but every man a liar …" (Rom 3.4). This method of argument is used repeatedly by Paul in order to emphasise particular points in his development of the gospel. Note that his method has four steps: first, a statement is made; second, an objection to that statement is assumed; third, the protest is met with the response 'Far be the thought'; fourth, a doctrinal explanation of the case is then given. This structure can be observed in the next use of the expression "God forbid", or 'Far be the thought', in the Roman epistle.
Romans 3.6
Statement: Paul knew, probably more than any other man, how the mind of the unbelieving Jew worked. His earlier quotation of Psalm 51.4 (in Romans 3.4) was to dismiss the question raised in verse three, and also to make a statement about the character of God. It is not simply the case that God is never wrong, but all that He does is morally right. "Let God be true, but every man a liar". But Paul knew that the unsanctified, rationalistic thinking of his erstwhile Jewish companions would not rest there.
Objection: Having made that statement, Paul assumes their next question, qualifying it by saying "I speak as a man" (v 5) because it is based only on human reasoning. "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?" (v 5). In other words, 'if our faithless behaviour as a favoured nation has been the cause of God's faithfulness being magnified, doesn't that make God unrighteous in visiting judgment upon us?'.
Response: Once again, the sharp response is 'Far be the thought'!
Explanation: If God could be fickle and employ double standards in relation to his judgment of Israel, on what possible moral ground could He then judge the world? And the fact that God will one day judge the world was something that would have been acknowledged by every religious Jew. The fallacy of their objection would have been recognised immediately. Paul presses the point home. He takes the Jews' assumed argument concerning the nation and applies it to himself. "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" (3.7). The Jew would have to concede that individual men stand as sinners before God, answerable for their own guilt, so to assume that a nation of individuals - Israel - could somehow avoid judgment for their sins was ludicrous. As Paul relentlessly crushes the proud, self-righteous arguments of his fellow Jews, he homes in on their relationship with the law of Moses.
Romans 3.31
Statement: The statement associated with the third use of the expression "God forbid" in the Roman epistle is "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith" (Rom 3.28-30). We can almost hear the howls of protest from the Jews as they are brought down to the same level as the Gentiles in regard to their condemnation, and are now told that "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (v 24) is as freely available to the Gentiles as to themselves. It is all of grace, through faith.
Objection: The consequent question that Paul supposes will be on their lips is "Do we then make void the law through faith?" (v 31). The Greek word 'katargeo' (Strong's G2673)², translated "make void" in verse 31, is frequently used, and variously translated, in the New Testament. It is translated "make … without effect" (Rom 3.3); "bring to nought" (1 Cor 1.28); "destroy" (1 Cor 6.13); and "abolished" (Eph 2.15). The same word is also rendered "done away" in the statement "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" (1 Cor 13.10). Paul was teaching the Corinthians about the temporary nature of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. They were necessary in the infancy of the church when there was no New Testament and the full revelation of church truth, through Paul, had not yet been given, but the time would come when they would no longer be needed. As soon as "that which is perfect is come" ("perfect", 'teleios' [Strong's G5046]³, means 'complete', 'mature': note the use of the word in 1 Corinthians 14.20 "… in understanding be men"; and in Hebrews 5.14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age …") then the God-given, necessary gifts of the Spirit would have achieved their purpose and would be rendered inoperative. There was nothing wrong with those gifts, although there was a lot wrong with the way in which the Corinthians were using them. Likewise, there was nothing wrong with the law, but there was a lot wrong with the attitude of the Jews towards it. Remember, it had already been said of the Jew "Thou that makest thy boast of the law …" (Rom 2.23). The question Paul assumes they will therefore ask is 'If Jew and Gentile are alike condemned, and alike justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, then are you not effectively dismissing the law as an irrelevance? Does not your doctrine of justification by faith destroy the law and make it of no effect?'
Response: The now familiar words "God forbid", 'Far be the thought'!
Explanation: Far from undermining the law, and thus undermining the authority of the One who gave it, Paul says "yea, we establish the law" (Rom 3.31). The law is 'set in its appointed place' by the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. The Jews' attitude to the law had become so distorted that they boasted in the very thing that condemned them. The purpose of the law was not to make the Jew righteous, but to demonstrate that he was manifestly unrighteous and must therefore cast himself in repentance upon the mercy of God. As Paul had earlier written to the Galatians, the purpose of the law was tutorial, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal 3.24). (To be continued …)
¹ Helen Spurrell, A Translation of the Old Testament Scriptures from the Original Hebrew.
² James Strong, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
³ George V Wigram, The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament.
