#76. Romans 3:19-20 – Just (Justification Series: Prologue)

Part II: The Conduct of Humanity

Throughout our study of Romans, you have heard me use the words “just,” “justify,” “just statute,” “righteousness,” “made righteous,” and “righteous standard.”

I have not made an attempt to define these words yet. As we approach the evangel, this becomes an imperative task, for understanding this word is vital to apprehending Romans as a whole.

The term “just,” in Greek, is dikaion. This base element appears 227 times in the Greek scriptures. Of these 227 occurrences, 74 of them appear in Romans. Counting Romans 3:20, we have seen the term appear 19 times already, and we will see it appear 19 more times before Romans 5.

In this article, I seek to briefly review each use of “just” thus far in Romans, with the basic definition of the term in mind.

The Definition

The definition of “just,” as it appears in the Keyword Concordance in the back of the CLNT, is “conformed to right or law,” or “righteous.” The quality of being “just” is to be right. This definition perfectly encapsulates every use of the term. For example, if I am watching The Princess Bride, and you say, “Stephen, you must be watching Pirates of the Caribbean!” then when I reply, “No, I am watching The Princess Bride,” you become just in regards to this situation, if/when you say, “Oh, I see. You are indeed watching The Princess Bride.” Your initial assumption is “unjust,” yes? But your correction is just.

This does not indicate that you have “always been just,” or “could never be wrong.” It means that you are now thinking in accord with what is right, and have been conformed to it.

You may notice that there is no immediate “moral” connotation to my example. There are many uses of “just” in scripture which directly relate to one’s moral quality – especially as we have been considering it in Romans. Yet this does not always mean that to be “just” is to be “moral,” or to “act right.” For example, one of the first uses of “just” is found in Matthew 1:19–

Now Joseph, her husband, being just and not willing to hold her up to infamy, intended covertly to dismiss her.

In this example, is Joseph “morally” right? No – he would not have followed the law, had Mary actually cheated. By law, he would be obligated to march his now-pregnant lady to the temple, and have her stoned. By not following the law, Joseph “literally” sinned. He did not realize that he was doing the right thing until it was revealed to him later (Matt. 1:20.)

It was because of God’s context for Joseph’s preference for sin that Joseph could be considered “just.” God used Joseph’s wrong to ensure the birth of the sinners’ Salvation. Joseph could not have rationally foreseen a Divine impregnation. No one could! Yet it is Joseph’s inclination to break the law that God uses to conform him to right understanding.

Revisiting Romans 1

We can trace the first appearance of “just” in Romans back to 1:17–

For in [the evangel] God’s righteousness is being revealed, out of faith into faith, according as it is written: “Now the just one by faith shall be living.”

It is notable that the first use of “just” is the term “righteousness,” being dikaiosune, “JUST-TOGETHERNESS,” being directly affiliated with God. He, first and foremost, rests in the quality or state of being just. There is no evangel apart from the righteousness of God, for without it, the evangel’s premise is vanquished, and the righteousness of any created thing would be meaningless.

It is further notable that the second use of “just” is found in the Habakkuk quotation. This second appearance relates to any who are faithful. Those who are faithful are given the righteousness of God. This is not to say that they are automatically “right,” or conformed to law, under “every” circumstance. It is to show that they are given this status of “justness,” by the just God, in grace, through faith (Rom. 1:7, 3:21-24, Eph. 2:8-9.)

This contextualizes “righteous” in Romans as judicial in scope. Through faith, righteousness as portrayed in Romans can be imparted, as a verdict after the facts have been accounted for. I emphasize, through belief, no matter your personal actions. By imparting faith, then, God declares, with it, this judicial verdict upon you: righteous.

This is simply fascinating, for, as we recall, the only rational conclusion to our actions is that we are deserving of death. God followed up His introduction to just-ness with its opposite, in 1:18–

For God’s indignation is being revealed from heaven on all the irreverence and injustice of men who are detaining the truth in injustice…

This is in line with the prevailing contrast between man and God. Man is unjust, while God is just. And, as God indicates, in Rom. 1:28-32, we have–

A disqualified mind, to do that which is not befitting, filled with all injustice… those who, recognizing the just statute of God, that those committing such things are deserving of death, not only are doing them, but are endorsing, also, those who are committing them.

Wow. This is God’s “just statute,” or His just effects. If the premise considers our actions in any way, then the conclusion must be death.

Thus our actions cannot dictate or enable our salvation in any way. If this were the case, then God would be “saving” through an unjust premise. If the premise is unjust, then the salvation is invalid. This very much includes the philosophical claim that salvation is contingent on “you accepting Jesus into your heart.” If God’s salvation requires your consent, then His operation hinges on your thoughts and feelings. The conclusion of this faux “salvation” is still death.

Thus, in chapter 1 of Romans, we can trace the underlying thematic preparation for the evangel by relating the uses of “just” to each other. We read of a revelation of God’s righteousness, that one lives when they are just, and then of man’s failure to be righteous, supposing our death.

Revisiting Romans 2

Two of the most important words in Holy Writ – “just” and “judgment” – are often treated as interchangeable among religious groups. The biggest example is the catchphrase, “God is love, but He is also just.” The implication here is that God loves you, but if He does not perpetually burn you for your misdemeanors, then He is not just. This is a bit of inductive reasoning; “just” here is used to refer to God’s “judgment,” which is further supposed as a condemnation.

As we covered in Romans 2, “judge” in Greek is krino, carrying the stem kri. This stem is nowhere to be found in the word “just,” the stem of which is dik (don’t laugh.) The fact that these two terms cannot be treated as interchangeable is most clearly demonstrated in Romans 2:5–

you are hoarding for yourself indignation in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God…

In Greek, the two words “just judgment” are really one word, containing both stems. It reads, dikaiokrisias, literally “OF-JUST-JUDGMENT.” The fact that the stem dik is not prefixed to most uses of the word “judgment” rule out the notion that the two are inherently related (you would not, for example, apply “just” to man’s judgment in Rom. 2:1, showing conclusively that “judgment” does not include “just” in its meaning.)

This just judgment promised two outcomes, for those who do and do not act righteously, respectively–

[God] will be paying each one in accord with his acts: to those, indeed, who by endurance in good acts are seeking glory and honor and incorruption: life eonian; yet to those of faction, and stubborn, indeed, as to the truth, yet persuaded to injustice: indignation and fury, affliction and distress, on every human soul which is effecting evil…

As previously mentioned, injustice may be traced through all mankind. In fact, every human soul does effect evil to some capacity, and as God pointed out in 1:28-32, this is an effect of our underlying preference for injustice (1:18.) Hence the boundary lines become clear – mankind cannot justly judge, for our perspective has been warped, perhaps commodified or twisted. God must judge us, or we could never see the error in our ways.

The discussion of the “just judgment” of God in Romans 2 was, as you recall, important for establishing Paul’s conclusion in Romans 3:10 – that not one is just, neither Greek or Jew. Yet the religious Jew especially believes that he has a right standing with God, simply because he was given The Torah. Yet God retorts, in 2:13–

For not the listeners to the law are just with God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

The Jews’ history accurately shows that they are just as, if not more contemptible than the nations they look down upon. Not one, to this day, has ever truly followed the law (Jesus is the exception that proves this rule, for His spirit is not man’s spirit, but a spirit of holiness – Rom. 1:4.)

The stem “just” appears in two forms in the above verse: as an adjective and a verb. The adjective form is the easier one, describing how one is not seen as “just” if all they do is hear the law.

The verb, however, is the hotly debated one, and will pervade Romans 3:21-4:5. Its definition must be understood in connection with its stem. To be just, the noun, is to be conformed to righteousness. To be just, the adjective, is the quality of being righteous. Thus, to be justified, the verb, is the action of the judge, finding the defendant righteous, the extent of His “right-ness” being determined by the context. The verb form appears 39 times in the New Testament, 15 of which appear in Romans (8 more times in Galatians, the complementary piece on justification.) A brief word study of each appearance will show this definition to be inflexible, as we will see in Romans 3:20-4:5.

Consequently, the “justification” God speaks of in Romans 2:13 is unattainable. This is not new information, of course; Paul says the same thing to those in the synagogue, in Acts 13:39, that “you could not be justified in the law of Moses.” It is also the conclusion of Rom. 3:20. No sin, regardless of intent, can be ignored by the God Who sees the hidden things of humanity. We must be looked upon by this Judge as right in all if we are to be considered “justified” by our works at the bar of righteousness. Thus, if we are charged with any of the actions in Romans 1:29-31, or their underlying cause(s) in 1:18-28, then we could not be accounted “justified” by our works, and should have no premise on which to judge God.

This is bad news for the religious Jew, who must, then, face the fact presented in Romans 2:26–

If the uncircumcision, then, should be maintaining the just requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?

Here the “just effects” relate to the law, as opposed to the “just statute” of God (cf. 1:32.) If the uncircumcised were able to follow the law, the whole story would be flipped on its head. The Jew would find that they are less worthy than those they considered silly goyim. This would, in turn, enable those silly goyim to judge the Jew, subverting the promise to Abraham that Israel would be the channel of blessing for the restoration of the earth.

This logical argument from Paul was not given to state that this would be the case, but to show its merit, and so demonstrate the failure of all men to maintain the just requirements of the law.

Revisiting Romans 3

The first One to be considered “justified” in Romans is God.

Now let God be true, yet every man a liar, even as it is written: “That so You should be justified in Your sayings, And shall be conquering when You are being judged.”

No other is more worthy of the “justified” label than God. By justifying the individual, God’s object is to show that He is just, and a Justifier (3:26.) Thus we are foreshadowed the underlying motivation for justification. Mankind’s collective injustice enables the presentation on which God’s sayings can be understood and contextualized, so that He should be justified. Not only does this show the necessity for our falsehoods at present (as a backdrop, recall, for God’s goodness,) but also shows, fundamentally, His righteousness, so that our justification (thus also the resolution of the backdrop,) indeed reveals God’s righteousness (1:17.)

I have already considered this verse extensively, so let me also share a brief anecdote, here. Recently, I have been gifted a book set called The Great Books of the Western World, by our brother Rodney Paris. This 54-volume set takes us through the greats of human literature (the Bible is excluded, though in their intro to the set they said that this is because the Bible should already be in your home.) The set is composed in chronological fashion, so of course, I began with the epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey.

And what an astounding revelation! I had read The Odyssey in high school, but the full import of the writing was lost on me (that darned educational system fails, as per usual.) I had never read The Iliad before, so I began there. What I found was a pantheon of gods who, on no uncertain terms, do not reflect the Hebrew God at all. The Greek gods are instead swayed by human prayers and opinions. As early as Book 2 of The Iliad, Zeus makes a promise to Agamemnon (the King of the Achaeans) that he does not intend to keep! It is directly portrayed as Zeus deceiving Agamemnon for the selfish purpose of controlling the Trojan War to his most profitable outcome. And this is not even to bring about the many, many sinister dealings, infidelities, and unusually cruel actions of the Greek pantheon.

Through this, I have found that even by comparing other gods to the One Elohim, David’s claim stands firm – God is justified in His sayings when He is being judged, regardless of whether the one judging is human or a heavenly being. When speaking to mankind directly, He remains truthful under any circumstance. There is no falsehood which He speaks (demonstrated by His Son’s walk on the earth, Who also spoke no lie.)

Thus this One alone has every right to judge, given He alone is found righteous in every way in His sayings.

Now if our injustice is commending God’s righteousness, what shall we declare? Not that God Who is bringing on indignation is unjust! (As a man am I saying it.)

This verse serves to thematically bridge the gap between the discussion of man’s conduct and the evangel. It launches the final piece of the argument before Paul’s conclusion in 3:9-20. What I mean by this is seen in each use of “just” in the passage. The relation between our injustice and God’s righteousness is now clearly seen – we are unjust, yet this commends the righteousness of God. This gives purpose to our injustice, and simultaneously educates us as to God’s goal with all mankind to begin with – to teach us about righteousness, its value and its beauty.

Where we fail, then, God’s success shines.

The objection that follows – “God must be unjust for making our injustice” – is shortsighted, and proposes that we have an ability to judge that God does not. One must immediately take an adverse stance to righteousness by arguing in favor of this claim. God has made it clear that He disagrees with unjust act, yet by disagreeing with its purpose, we must suppose some alternative purpose for injustice – one which attributes God’s story to another, whether it be Satan, another god, or ourselves.

As stated before, depiction is not endorsement. God does not depict evil to delight in it, as many men do. Like every good storyteller, the evil is used as a necessary backdrop for the inevitable good which will win over the evildoer. Since injustice is used for the ultimate welfare of all, and this is shown most prominently by the scene of the crucifixion – where the only innocent One to walk the earth is graphically murdered for the long-term benefit of the murderers, and exaltation of Himself. To disregard evil’s role in God’s plot is to disregard the necessary foil for the good. To this day, no alternative relationships have been proposed which could account for every living creature.

God, in the meantime, takes every action into account, and has already foreknown the outcome to every conceivable “error” on our part. Thus Paul says, in Romans 3:8–

[God’s] judgment is fair.

The term “fair,” in Greek, is endikon, or “IN-JUST.” God’s judgment is identified with being right because only He bears witness to every action, and can take the necessary measures to remedy any given situation.

In order for the evangel’s full force to be unveiled, we must acknowledge Paul’s conclusion, for the reason he launched into a diatribe about “indignation” and “judgment.” This is in Romans 3:10–

We previously charge both Jews and Greeks to be all under sin, according as it is written, that “Not one is just – there is not even one.”

All have been shown unjust. We have sought to self-justify, yet every platform we have constructed for ourselves has fallen apart. Many of these platforms are flashy, yet uneven. Others are far more modest, and humble. But all have been trying to build their house on sand. God is only acknowledged so far as church authorities deem it “correct.” Reasonings turn “kingdoms” into “gatherings,” “brides” into “bodies,” “souls” into “spirits.” In these mix-ups, the force of the original terms are lost. Any attempt at recovering with a concordant method, so as to expose the false and indicate the true, is practically always avoided when it clashes with one’s pre-suppositions.

The integrity of all – including you, dear reader, and myself, a pitiful writer – is nonexistent. We must speak of such things relatively, or we could lose focus with reality, of course. But in relation to God, especially, there is no platform on which we have a right to judge Him and His methods. If your objections, dear reader, have sounded anything like the various objections made in Romans 3:1-8, then your bias has also been exposed. If you are to maintain these objections, it cannot be under a false pretense of the cross. The only solution is either to remain unknowledgeable of the cross – in which your objections remain unproven, founded on ignorance – or to recognize the bias you have, and rationally place them on pause to hear the evangel Paul presents.

- GerudoKing