#73. Romans 3:10-18 – A Complete Study of Paul’s Use of the Hebrew Scriptures, Part IV

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

For those of you who are not professionally argumentative, there are three pillars to a sound argument: the ethos, pathos, and logos. These deal with the credibility of an argument, the logicality of an argument, and the emotional depth of an argument. All three are necessary to a functional argument.

We have seen all three of these pillars playing their roles in Romans thus far. Paul has shown an emotional and logical quality to his argument; these are meditated on in other parts of our Romans study. Today we are focusing on the credibility aspect of the argument – wherein Paul demonstrates that his argument is not new, thus fully portraying a logically consistent, emotionally engaging, and credible background on which the evangel can be portrayed.

Paul shows this credibility by citing the Old Testament scriptures. Romans 3:10-18 contains multiple references to scriptures. As with the previous parts of this study, we will briefly dwell on the original verses, their prior contexts, and how Paul uses them apart from those contexts.

Before we press on, it may be asked by an atheist objector, “How is Paul giving credibility to his argument? He can’t quote the Bible with the Bible and expect me to believe there is credibility to what he’s saying.” This is quite a shortsighted objection, yet one that I find the atheist crowd taking great pride in. The truth is that Paul is not “quoting the Bible.” He is quoting multiple historical documents – Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, as well as many different Psalms – all of which are written at various points in the history of the Jewish nation. “The Bible,” as it has been presented by Christendom for the last 1,800 years, did not exist at the time of Paul’s writings. Nor is Paul citing something his friend Luke wrote last week. They are valid resources, and it is a fallacy by ignorance to lump each document together and call it “one single book that proves itself.” They are seventy separate documents which complement each other.

Moreover, to make this objection is to turn a blind eye to the other two pillars of Paul’s argument, its emotion and logic. To withstand them is to stand in favor of the actions in Romans 1:29-31, so the atheist objector must decide if he would argue against his own conscience, and that of multiple resources which speak smartly of the human condition, in order to make said objection.

With that out of the way, let’s begin.

Ecclesiastes

Paul’s major conclusion – that “Not one is just” – is found in Ecclesiastes 7:20–

For there is no righteous man in the earth Who does good and never sins.

For those unfamiliar with “Ecclesiastes…”

I… highly recommend reading Ecclesiastes. It’s not long. The Concordant Version presents it quite well. The Ecclesiastes writer (named “The Assembler”) is extremely pessimistic. Next to Paul in the opening notes of Romans, The Assembler writes one of the most depressing reads in history. He gives us such wonderful lines as, “Vanity of vanities, the whole is vanity,” and “Where the place of judgment is, there is wickedness, and where the place of justice is, there is wickedness,” and “All are going to one place; all have come from the soil, and all return to the soil.” He poses such pertinent questions as, “Since the destiny of the stupid man is also mine, and it shall befall me, to what advantage then have I been wise?”

The whole of Ecclesiastes concerns the purpose of the relative day to day life. It contains an elongated, desperate cry for an explanation for the madness, the value of oneself, and the purpose of our daily toil. It is the existential crisis. There is, arguably, no greater existential crisis, for this one God crafted to pen in His book.

Ecclesiastes may be broken into five individual “books,” each of which present the words of “The Assembler” (Ecc. 1:1-11,) concerning the works of the human. They are interwoven in nature; to consider even one line in the third or fourth book may require a general understanding of the author’s topic and scope. In book 1 (1:12-2:26,) The Assembler considers the individual’s experience of toil – its worth, its function, its effects. Book 2 (3:1-4:8) concerns a broader scope, surveying the work of God, assigning good and evil to specific seasons for the purpose of humbling us (3:10.) Book 3 (4:9-7:12) dwells upon the desires of the heart and soul, showing us the progression of vanity, completing the discussion of the human experience in book 1.

Book 4 (7:13-9:15) contains the seminal quote in 7:20. Book 4 relates to book 2, as book 3 related to book 1. It returns to the thoughts posed on the work of God. In book 2, the seasons were contrasted so as to demonstrate the opposite forces of good and evil. Yet in book 4, these same forces are considered in a complementary way; how each, for all their antagonism toward each other, also relate to each other.

Observe the beginning of book 4:

See the work of the One, Elohim; For who can set in order that which He has overturned? In a day of good, be resting in the good, and in a day of evil, be vigilant; indeed, the One, Elohim, has made this one along with that one, for this reason: that a man cannot find out anything about his hereafter.

This is a heavy statement, yet it is conceptually no different than Paul’s assessments in Romans. We have no ability to overturn the corruption which God has established. God has made both days of good and of evil. These are His doing. In this, the primary “relation” between good and evil, opposite forces as they may be, is that they are both designed by God. God explicitly attests to making both.

This is how The Assembler reaches his statement – from here. In verses 15-22, various experiences are given which are meant to attest to this point. We suppose we are righteous! Yet we die (v. 15.) As we know from Paul, the race’s decay is proof of inherent failure, making those who suppose themselves righteous to be vain (cf. Rom. 1:22.) This contributes to the author’s point that the whole is vanity.

When he reaches verse 20, then, he (along with Paul, and the present reader) must conclude that there is no one righteous – not even one who has done right.

Paul must bring this citation to the table, then, for if the Jew will not listen to Paul, he must listen to the scriptures he proclaims a belief in. This simple statement was true well before Paul came along, so why attempt to indict Paul over it?

By implementing this quote, Paul may also be insinuating that his evangel dissolves the “vanity” of the self. The conclusion of The Assembler’s point is that mankind does not have the ability to unravel the mystery of evil (Ecc. 7:23-24.) Yet this is where Paul comes into play. Though the whole of humanity is indeed vanity, the goal of the evangel is to establish a new humanity (Rom. 6:3-14.) We are not meant to stay vain – hence evil is an experience, not a permanence (Ecc. 1:13, 3:10.) By quoting this, Paul attests an answer to the cries of The Assembler, ultimately answering his despair with the greatest work of God, achieved at the cross.

The Psalms

Paul quotes from four different psalms. We will first consider Psalm 14:1-3, for it is quoted first in Romans–

The decadent one says in his heart, There is no Elohim. They have become corrupt and abhorrent in activity; There is no one doing good. Yahweh, He gazes down from the heavens on the sons of humanity, To see whether there is anyone acting intelligently, Anyone seeking after Elohim. All withdraw aside; Together they are spoiled. There is no one doing good; There is not even one.

At the time of writing, it may have been assumed that David was speaking of the nations – excluding Israel from the context. While this is plausible, hindsight is 20/20, and the truth is that Paul employs this verse as an indictment of all sons of humanity, not some. None escape the charge of “decadence,” as we have carefully considered.

One point of interest is David’s statement that “there is no one doing good.” Paul evidently changed this term from good to kindness. It would seem to shift the argument from one of avoidance of God to the effects of that avoidance – emphasizing how we deal with each other. We cannot be trusted, and cannot be kind to each other, if our premise is avoiding the Source of all kindness.

Paul then draws upon Psalm 5:9–

For there is nothing established in their mouth; Within them are woes; A sepulcher opened is their throat; With their tongue they deal slickly.

This is another quote which does not match its immediate context. David wrote this line concerning the nations (in contrast to Israel, Ps. 5:7.) For Paul to include Israel here may surely send them for a shock! Yet it is in line with Paul’s argument per 1:18-3:10 that Israel is a part of this indictment, which thus makes its application valid to all.

Paul further indicts mankind’s words by quoting Psalm 140:3–

Liberate me, O Yahweh, from the evil person; From the man of violence may You preserve me; Those who devise evil deeds in their heart, All day long they stir up warfare; They whet their tongue like a serpent; The venom of an asp is under their lips.

It is notable that David says this as a cry for protection, whereas Paul uses it to indict the entire race. It would indicate that we are all evil persons, and are all capable of great destruction through our words. The cry for protection, then, can include yourself – “O Yahweh, liberate me from my own iniquity,” or, as Paul will later put it, “A wretched man am I? What will rescue me out of this body of death?”

Isaiah

When commenting on our actions, Paul cites Isaiah 59:7-8–

Their feet are running to evil, And they are hastening to shed innocent blood; Their devisings are devisings of lawlessness; Devastation and brokenness are in their highways. The way of peace they do not know, And there is no right judgment in their rounds; They have made their tracks perverted for themselves; Anyone treading in them knows no peace.

This passage, in contrast to Ps. 5:9, only concerned Israel. At the deportation of Israel from God’s land, they spitefully charged God as unable to save them (Is. 59:1.) This was used as an excuse to avoid accountability for their sins, which, at the time, had not been covered by the blood of Christ. They would not acknowledge that the separation and withholding of their blessings was due to their relative sin – not because God was “unable” to save them (59:2.)

Yet again, Paul takes this passage which was for select individuals, and applies it to all of us. The issue of separation did not begin with Israel, but back in the garden of Eden. This is a race-wide issue, not only a national one.

The Conclusion

Paul concludes his relative indictment with one final quote from Psalms 36:1–

The wicked one has a watchword of transgression within his heart; There is no awe of Elohim in front of his eyes…

The term “awe” is phchd in Hebrew. The term literally reads “afraidness,” thus giving “awe” the same application of “fear” as Paul gives in Romans 3:18 (you can even see this term translated similarly in Est. 8:17, Job 3:25, 4:14, 22:10, and more.) It is the noun form of the term “fear.”

Thus we have a fully pre-supposed argument which can be pre-supposed, since it has already been proven. Though mankind has not yet come around to accepting our inability to accomplish righteous ends, the argument itself still stands, and remains true. All will find their own inadequacies through sin, presented, demonstrated, and repudiated in the Hebrew scriptures. Paul is giving a summary of an argument which had played out centuries prior. If, for some reason, you decided that you were never going to read the Old Testament, and only ever read Paul (I do not recommend this,) then God is gracious in first having the apostle give you the Cliff Notes version; Romans 1:18-3:20 summarizes the Old Testament perfectly, providing its major themes and concepts.

This is the last time that Paul will cite the Old Testament for the remainder of Romans 3. This is important, for the evangel itself is revealed in Romans 3:21-32. Paul will cite the Old Testament a few times in chapter 4, when discussing Abraham’s walk of faith. Yet when it comes to the evangel, we find no support whatsoever from the Old Testament.

In other words, Paul does not quote an old passage to convey new information! Paul specially quotes the Old Testament to account for principles already known to be true. To weave the old into Rom. 3:21-26 is a ploy to discard the content of Paul’s message, nothing more.

- GerudoKing