#75. Romans 3:19 – The Function of the Law

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

Now we are aware that, whatever the law is saying, it is speaking to those under the law, that every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may become subject to the just verdict of God…

…What Was the Point of All That?

No, seriously! I understand that we are talking about Israel, right? And the law? But why? Sure – it shows the unjustness of those under law. But it is very possible to learn this information outside of the law (Rom. 2:14-16.) Did we, the modern day reader, need to go on a 21-verse bender considering the Jewish objections? This may have held weight when it was written, and, sure, it helps to know what they are literally saying apart from Christian philosophy, but was it truly critical for you or me to learn, when our lives have very well taught us Paul’s driving thought already?

Much in every manner. See, our lives teach us that we are unjust, but Paul is swinging for the fences. He isn’t here to show you a mirror; he’s here to shine a light. We do not need to “know” the fact, but appreciate its depth. If we aren’t able to acknowledge the dimensions of the issue – sin’s scope, its cursed inability to produce righteous conduct – then the gravity of the evangel will never click with us. In short, the evangel concerns more than you. Its goal includes you, but it must show first that it is not contingent on you, or any who have already obtained its message.

Paul uses the law to shine this light. Again, God knew we would be unable to do the law, going in. We are the ones who did not realize the utter failure of our fleshy works. In fact, most of humanity still stubbornly believes that there is some defense that will come to their rescue, as if God is, for some reason, looking for a reason to justify you on the basis of your own acts.

Such a reason is non-existent.

God’s presentation of mankind thus needs to be presented through the law and its impact on mankind. Our internal conflict of good and evil is best conveyed through it. God does not give the most powerful nation His law – such as Egypt, for example, whose pharaoh was in the business of slavery. Instead, He gives the slave the law. He gives such privilege to the one who had been screwed up and traumatized. When exposed to the judgment of God, the gentile may say, “Yeah, that was me – a wretched slave-owner. I see my problem.” Yet the prideful cannot say the same! The religious Jew would not say this, but “I have suffered indentured servitude! I have not been given a chance to display righteousness because my circumstances have repressed me!” That such a one could end up being convicted of the same crimes as the one enslaving people would be unheard of!

…Well… if not for the law.

The law ends this debate through its application, from the Old Testament days into the present. Not one has followed it, even if the odds were ever in their favor. The hyper-religious folk may not have learned the lesson yet, but for us who are reading the text, the evidence is clear: the law spoke to those under the law, not to preach equal opportunity for all, or to herald mankind’s success in the “always doing right” category.

That’s right: the demonstration of the law bars every mouth. The Great Silencing concludes mankind’s self-justifying attitude. God is not a haughty parent telling you to “Zip your lip!” He is assuming the role of… well, God. He has explained Himself, and now is telling you to shush. He has not been disrespectful (I have likely been disrespectful in these pages, but that’s because I’m human. Romans 1:18, remember?) He has kept the facts straight and has not spoken down to you. If anything, He has spoken up to us, catering to our arguments and our questions. Better still, because of the evangel, He will continue to indulge us well after His evangel has been presented, fielding many more questions for us, though we do not even deserve the evangel itself.

That we do not deserve the evangel is evident through the barring of our mouths. We have no right to talk – yet we do. We have no right to receive the evangel – yet we do.

It has been argued that this is a manipulative tactic, brought about by a manipulative god. Yet the purpose of our evil has been expressly stated and contextualized (Rom. 3:5-6,) and the evangel itself precludes no one (Rom. 1:16, 3:22, 5:18-19.) “Manipulation” is sourced in oneself achieving what oneself desires, often at the cost of an innocent/good party. Yet God is not doing this for He, Himself alone, but for His Son (Rom. 1:3,) and in turn, you (Rom. 1:6-7.)

Nor is Paul himself lecturing us. He is not speaking from a pedestal. Not one naturally includes Paul. Paul would be the first to include himself, naming himself “the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15.) In the flesh, Paul readily acknowledges his same depravity. He is the greatest evidence that God does not “help those who help themselves,” or “believe the best.” Paul is chosen because he acts the worst, is the most self-righteous. He is the perfect demonstration that God is saving through a different means than mankind’s acts. Through this – even in light of the bluntest reality of our failure to love and justly judge – Paul does not speak in condemnatory fashion. He speaks as a changed man, who looks forward to the evangel to come.

The Just Verdict

This is the second time we have seen the phrase, “entire world.” The first time was in regards to the faith of the Roman ecclesia, which has indeed been announced to all, both in the heavens and on the earth. Here, the entire world may stress humanity, and it may be logically consistent to restrict “entire world” to us alone. Yet it does make sense if the celestial realm is included in this phrase, given so much of our action is contingent on their foolish rule. The top 1% aren’t “eating babies” for fun, right? No – it’s for another deity which dominates the race.

The entire world is going to be subject to the just verdict of God. This translation, “just verdict,” of the term hupodikos, “UNDER-JUST,” is unique to the Concordant Version. Most versions say, “under the judgment of God.” This is wrong (as per usual, I guess.) A few are closer to the mark, saying “accountable to God.” Yet the worst translation is the KJV, saying that the entire world must become “guilty” before God.

I cannot emphasize just how poor this translation is. If you are “guilty,” you cannot be justified. By attempting to do this, you assume the role of a judge, and thus make yourself guilty. If you asked a judge, “How many guilty men have you forgiven?” they would look at you funny. Legalese is important, here: guilt does not determine “forgiveness.” Forgiveness is an emotional correction, not a judicial one – especially in the scriptures themselves. There are “pardons,” in which the judge acknowledges your guilt, and then pardons the penalty. But for the judge to blatantly look at a guilty man and say, “You are innocent!” is terrible judgment.

This casts a pall on God’s just judgment, yet again. The churches proclaim that He acquits the sinner, through their theory that He has “substituted” Himself on the cross.

…Yeah. There’s a lot to cover, there. If you’ve never heard of “substitutionary theory,” then boy, have I got a monstrous little idea for you! According to the “substitutionary theory,” Jesus “saves” you by standing in, essentially, for the death of the cross. The underlying premise is that you are guilty, and are deserving, not merely of death, but of the death of the cross.

We can see a few issues, right off the bat. Firstly, God never once says that you are deserving of the death of the cross. The cross was a battle scene, where Jesus took Sin to the grave. It was not a threat to any but Him. To suppose that you should be up there on that cross is either the gravest error in reading, or an insane proposal that we are like Christ in any capacity, that we could even begin to handle such a weight upon our unjust shoulders. It was hard enough for Him to carry that weight, being just!

The substitutionary theory’s goal is to acquit the guilty. The presumption is that Christ goes to the cross after God judges you, so that God could offer you salvation anyway, despite your guilt. Yet this flies in the face of everything we have read so far! God speaks of a future judgment for mankind (Rom. 2:5-10!) A future judgment means that a guilty verdict cannot yet be passed.

Scripture will attest to the falsehood of the “guilty” proclamation of the Political Version of the Bible. God says, earlier in Prov. 17:15–

He who justifies the wicked person and he who condemns the righteous man, Even both of them are an abhorrence to Yahweh.

Huh. So, according to God, the one who condemns a righteous man is just as abhorrent as one who would justify the wicked. If you are proclaiming, then, that we are “guilty” before the Just Judge has declared a verdict, then you must be as abhorrent as the ones who crucified Christ.

This is only unclear if you are viewing the argument from the emotional basis, “But we are bad guys, right? Why wouldn’t God get the judgment over with?” The answer is that God is making a just judgment – not a regular judgment. If He had judged at the great white throne prior to Paul’s evangel, then the judgment would have essentially ended the entire human race. Such would be a judgment, but it would not be just, in that it emphasizes a purposeless creation.

There is a salvation, proper, in Romans 3:21-26. But the idea that it consists of God looking at your guilty verdict, and knowingly scrubbing it out to assert your innocence, contrary to truth, is nothing more than wishful thinking. God’s justice system is nowhere near as pathetic as our own, one which would discard evidence in favor of emotion. To do this casts doubt on every other “guilty” verdict as well, for lack of standards.

The versions which say we the entire world will be “under the judgment of God” are not much better, either. It is a verifiable fact that not all will be “under the judgment of God.” Concerning those who are roused at the beginning of the millennial kingdom of Christ, John writes that these “shall not be taking part in the second death” (Rev. 20:6.) The “second death” is the penalty one faces at the great white throne judgment (as promised – Rom. 1:32, 2:8, Rev. 20:14-15.) Thus these will not be under the judgment of God. Jesus verifies this, saying “he who is hearing My word and believing Him Who sends Me, has life eonian, and is not coming into judging, but has proceeded out of death into life” (John 5:24.)

Believers – those who are justified through Paul’s evangel – will also not be taking part of the judgment of God. Those who are believing Him, His stated reasons and purposes for operating as He does, are in no need of correction. We will have received the lessons meant for us long before God reveals His just judgment. For “Nothing is now condemnation to those in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1.)

It is, interestingly, the discordant renderings of the King James and the Revised Version that reveal the truth. One indicates that the judgment has been, while the other indicates that the judgment will be. The latter is correct as to timing, but incorrect as to scope. The former is both incorrect as to timing and to scope.

The point of this passage is to show that we all answer to God, the only just One. His just verdict is the evangel which reveals His righteousness (Rom. 3:21.) It is God’s righteousness which the one on trial receives. We are defenseless, through our works. Only God’s impenetrable righteousness can save us from the only logical outcome of our actions. God cannot do wrong in judging, or He has no righteousness to impart.

- GerudoKing