#77. Romans 3:19-20 – Let God Speak (Justification Series: Prologue)

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, because, by works of law, no flesh at all shall be justified in His sight, for through law is the recognition of sin.

The burden of the evangel is thus presented. It must save an unrighteous person. The premise alone is astounding, for all of the world’s solutions do not resolve unrighteousness, but seek to minimize it. Perfection is treated as mythically utopian, and if one sets their sights on perfecting a craft, they are perceived as haughty, idealistic, or even crazy.

Indeed, many perceive Paul’s evangel in the same way!

Paul’s evangel, as conveyed in the first half of the “Justification Series Prologue,” proposes to save an unrighteous person by unfolding the righteousness of God, transferred to us through faith (Rom. 1:17.) To share this with us, God must show that the recipients of the evangel – all (1:16) – are all unrighteous, morally, intellectually, and emotionally.

Thus God ends His presentation of our conduct by claiming that, in regards to judgment, God brings all “UNDER-JUST,” or hupodikos. That is, we are literally brought under the ‘just’ of God. The “just verdict” is given in verse 20. If the measuring stick includes our works, under law, then no flesh can be justified in His sight.

While this verdict hurts, and it may sound as though I’m beating a dead horse, most refuse to acknowledge the facts as they have been presented! In other words, if I’m beating a dead horse, and it keeps getting up, then it’s not dead!!

So! Let’s say it again, for the peanut gallery: the truth hurts, but it is the truth. It is the only correct response from God’s perspective. He cannot rationally admit unrighteousness without plunging creation into eternal chaos, relinquishing a just authority over it. We must, apart from any consideration of the act of Christ, admit the truth. God’s just verdict over the entire human race is not happy, but it is right. We are – every last one of us – deserving of death.

In Flesh, Our Works Could Never

As we are, effecting the law is impossible. With sin in our flesh, we will always miss our aims. The task of religion, for the past 2,000 years, has been fruitless. It is supposed that, because Christ died, was entombed, and later roused, that a believer is now able to follow the law. Some congregations are willing to acknowledge that such a claim is self-righteous, and instead claim that, even though we are certain to fail, we should try to follow what we can of the law. This admits the idea that Christ fulfills the law in you wherever you fail to do it. In other words, fulfilling the just requirements of the law becomes a joint effort on the part of you and Jesus.

Such errant reasoning fails when the whole is viewed. If we are all unjust and deserving of death apart from Christ’s action, then what could we possibly contribute in a joint effort like this? When a portion of sinning mankind was placed under law, they failed miserably to follow it. Yet now, because Christ died, we are expected to follow the law to the best of our ability?

Let’s face it, folks: “close” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. We are not speaking of a difference between an A- and an A. We are speaking of the boundary line between righteous and unrighteous. If even one of our acts admits unrighteousness, then the corollary cannot be. The man “closest” to following the law was Paul – and, per his own words, he too failed completely to maintain its requirements (Rom. 7:14-23.) If our own apostle failed to follow the law – and, if our own apostle directly says that his evangel is apart from law (Rom. 3:21) – then why on earth would God’s evangel tell us to follow the law?

When we take our present verse to its clearest extent, you may see what little sense religion is making. By discounting the just standards of the law, the standard becomes unrighteous. By perverting the law, religious zealots thus pervert righteousness. According to God’s just verdict, no flesh at all shall be justified in His sight. The premise that you can follow “some” of the law while saying “sorry” where you lack is entirely unproven. Paul’s message will not follow up with this claim, and, in fact, will propose the opposite (Rom. 6:14.)

In Greek, “flesh” is singular, here, as is “every,” pas. The conclusion I have drawn is that flesh is singular due to the singularity with which God views the race. Though we will all be judged by our individual acts, this just verdict (also singular) speaks to the conclusion that Deity draws concerning the entire race. When one is presented at the great white throne, and their acts are measured against the law, what conclusion could be drawn other than this same just verdict that you are unjust?

The entirety of mankind, every action we have committed, is meditated upon prior to this just verdict being made. While God’s premise for the evangel is that the alternative is not being justified through acts, this premise is first proven in Romans 1:18-3:20. The argument for this is first demonstrated, so that the evangel’s foundation is not weak.

The proof is not limited to Romans. It is a prevalent theme throughout the entirety of Holy Writ. David sings, in Ps. 143:2, that “None can be righteous before You.” Everything Paul wishes to speak of throughout the rest of Romans must necessarily show first that all mankind is unjust, that the various parallels between the “old” and “new” can be considered in their fullest sense (Rom. 5:12-19, 8:20-21, 11:32, etc.)

In His Sight

The justification of one – them being accounted right – cannot occur if their actions are the premise for their salvation. Thus, from God’s view of the matter, one cannot be counted righteous if they are under law.

The term “in sight” is enopion, or “IN-VIEW.” When translating the Hebrew “Old Testament” to the Greek (called the Septuagint, or “LXX,”) the Hebrew term phni, literally “FACE-OF,” was translated to enopion, “IN-VIEW.” When comparing the Hebrew and Greek, then, these two can serve as equivalent in meaning.

The term conveys something that happens in “front of” another, in “their face,” idiomatically “in their/his/her view.” In the case of God, it is a form of condescension. Since God is not a corporeal being, to be “seen” by others, or to have eyes with which to “view” things with (Jo. 4:24, 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:16,) we are speaking of an extremely limited, figurative presentation of His power. We see, for example, in Genesis 6:11, that “the earth was ruined before the One, Elohim.” That is, literally, “to-faces-of the-Elohim.” No one would argue, due to other scripture, that God could only have been viewing a ruined earth. He is not subject to time, or physical matter, and would thus be assuming a “view” for that moment, but not limited to that view, as we are.

The adverb is flexible. Here is another use, in Psalm 139:7, where David writes, “Whither could I run away from Your presence?” That is, literally, “from-faces-of-You?” No act of ours has “escaped” the face of God. God knows and perceives all that we are, that we say and do (Ps. 139:1-2.) It is because of this that none can be justified on the basis of our action in His sight, for He cannot lie to Himself.

Yet there is one more sense in which we can perceive the word in regards to God. In Genesis 7:1, God says to Noah, “Come, you and all your household, into the ark, for I have seen you righteous before Me in this generation.” That is, literally, “righteous to-faces-of-Me.” On its surface, this would clash with our initial assessments, and even clash with the messaging of Romans 3:20. “IN-VIEW OF-HIM,” we are meant to recognize that no flesh shall be justified. Yet here He is, accounting Noah “righteous!”

What’s the catch??

Surely, we may perceive the verse in two senses. We may perceive it as the Hebraist writer meant for faithful Israel to perceive it – as a relative type of faith (Heb. 11:7.) Noah, in contrast to the rest of humanity, was faithful toward the One Elohim, finding “grace” in His “eyes” (Gen. 6:8.) This grace is, literally, a “favor” which was not merited on Noah’s part. God’s face, in its highest sense, is not limited to the present moment, nor mere judgment, but able to view the whole scope of history. Thus God can look forward with a view to Noah’s salvation, through Christ’s faith, as His evangel implies (Rom. 1:16, 3:22, 5:18-19.)

Of course, we are not reading Genesis 7 with a view to its original interpretation, as was perceived by the Israelites. But that’s just what Paul has done! In most citations hitherto, he has taken much license with the Old Testament readings, viewing them in light of the truths Christ has given him. We are not using a method any different than Paul, in this regard.

Hence we may speak to two different narratives in Genesis – one from the human viewpoint, and one from the divine viewpoint. It is beautiful to read Genesis from our limited human context – one in which God comes across as an enigmatic Force with unlimited power (and quite the temper.) From this perspective, it cannot be ignored that we are unjust. Human beings could recognize fellow human beings as sinners during this time. With no apparent outcome, the human race devolved (Gen. 4:17-24.) What God “saw” was nothing incomprehensible to man.

Yet it is far greater to read Genesis in light of Romans’ messaging, that we re-evaluate the entire Hebrew text in-view of Yahweh as the main character. In the latter portion of the book, Paul “de-codes” the motivations of this One, contextualizing every action He makes. He had to view Noah in such a way that did not take Noah’s flesh into account. Genesis 7:1 speaks of an inevitable certainty on the part of all mankind – that we will all soon be looked upon in light of the grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Let us, then, not be wavered by this just verdict, apart from Christ’s action. The only reason this just verdict even exists is because God’s grace through the cross could not be made known otherwise. Though many must be humbled at the judgment scene, in which this divine verdict is imposed upon them, it will never detract from the ultimate glory which faces Christ – that is, that He will receive all whom He died for.

Through Law

In the meantime, mankind must face the facts. When we review any experience with mankind under law, apart from faith, we read of our utter failure to keep it. Through the law, we have come to recognize sin.

As we considered previously, the root element within nomos, law, is “AIM.” Since the law aims at righteousness, and we are unrighteous, we have only realized hamartia, sin, our “MISS.”

The term “recognition” is brought to our attention through the Concordant version. Most versions would translate this term epignosis as “knowledge.” The problem is that gnosis is already translated “knowledge” (cf. Rom. 2:20, 11:33, 15:14.) The prefix “epi-” is “ON” in Greek. Hence the literal term is more than “knowledge,” but “ON-KNOWLEDGE,” or the realization that one gains (Ro. 1:20, 10:2, Eph. 1:17, Col. 1:9-10, etc.) You may imagine, as with the evangel, that “knowledge” is the platform on which one stands, to realize something.

This may sound simple – and it is! It is only complicated by millennia of poor translation practices. It will be critical for later passages (especially in Colossians,) but for now, we can apply its meaning clearly. Through the law – a presentation of righteous knowledge – one can realize sin. I have equated the law to a flashlight in prior chapters. The law shines a light on us, revealing our shadow. We understand missing, then, by way of the target. If we hit the target every time, we will find ourselves complacent. If we miss the target every time, however, we are brought to an appreciation of the target – its finer details, its distance from our bow, let’s say, and even the speed of the wind.

Let our mixed metaphors align, and apply them to the morality of the law, one final time. The Placer placed an inflexible standard of righteousness in front of unjust men, and then made obedience toward that standard a condition for perpetual life (Lev. 18:5, Gal. 3:12.)

To the surprise of no one, the human race continued as before, and no one gained immortality.

By doing this, God ensures mankind becomes aware of our wrong, and grow helpless under Sin’s thumb. The trick has been revealed – the law was a moral mirror upon the slaves of Egypt, who believed they were owed their allotment upon their rescue from Egypt. The mirror did not bring them righteousness. Instead, it justly showed them their unrighteousness. They were forced to examine their pock marks, their flabby skin, their R.B.F.’s and their shabby haircuts. Women were forced to note their weight. Men were forced to keep it in their pants. Their history showed their relative journey from being the oppressed (Ex. 1:22,) to being the oppressors (Matt. 2:16.)

All were spun into perpetual disarray, fighting their unrighteous ego, their unjust self, in their attempts to serve a just God.

With no way out, the future for all mankind looked bleak. All we had proven, in our brushes with the Righteous One, was that we were in the wrong league. Under law, God is throwing 300 mph fastballs while we can’t hit a wiffle ball! Paul has shown us that all men will be judged according to their acts (2:6, 26-27.) We have seen the necessity for morality – that it is in line with life, and good, and love, all of which characterize God, our Creator. Yet we have also seen our failure to act righteously, saddled by sin whether we like it or not (Rom. 3:10-18.) It is no surprise, then, that under law, we have only underlined our faults in our attempts to be larger than life.

Not Even a Mouse

Silence.

Upon reading the argument for the first time, I am not ashamed to admit that great waves of grief washed over me. The argument finally consummated, I despaired. I have even put off finishing this portion of the study, because it is such an oppressive thought. It was never my desire, when first beginning a study like Romans, to dwell so heavily on the argument made in these opening chapters. I was excited to share the justification of all, and the conciliation of all – both of which not only feel good to share, but are exciting and new, bound to turn a few heads and get a good conversation going.

I was humbled greatly by these opening strains, however. For all my words, my tears are louder, expressing a universe of poetry which I am too incompetent to pen. How necessary this argument is to Paul’s evangel cannot be understated. I did not realize how many errors this passage clarifies, how many modern-day strawman arguments it readily disposes of prior to the evangel’s revelation. Without this – the realization that, apart from Christ, all are considered unjustified, without exception, and that God orchestrated the events this way – the evangel cannot make sense. Its blessings cannot be appreciated.

There are many points still unanswered by this opening argument. It is not clearly seen, most of all, why our unrighteousness commends God’s righteousness. This objection is best asked here, at 3:20. It is at the heart of any other question. For example, if one asks, “Why tell us to follow the law, then?” then they must be asking this without realizing that our unrighteous acts under law commend God’s righteousness, through which He established the law. And, even if this dynamic is understood, we have not yet been given the “why,” shrouding the dynamic in enigma.

Yet the “why” is not critical to this part of Romans. This part of Romans does not seek to answer the problem of evil, but instead to set it up. Every relevant plea from the objecting crowd has been brought up and dispelled. The resolution of the problem of evil is the burden of the rest of Romans. As Paul noted, the righteousness of God is unveiled in His evangel. We have received a scriptural summary concerning the unrighteousness of all. We will now receive the contrast – a scriptural summary concerning the righteousness of God, how we may apprehend it, how it is imparted to us in grace, and its effects for us and eventually all.

Silence came over me when I first absorbed the necessity for the evangel. Yet this silence is the precursor to the “first words” of my new life:

Thank You.

These 64 verses were tragic, and necessary revelations of God’s just indignation and judgment of irreverence and injustice. But they stand so helpfully before the evangel, laying the groundwork for its supremacy above every other message. The pious religious individual, even after reading through these verses carefully, will still exempt themselves from this argument. “I am saved by the blood of Christ,” they say. True as this is, it is a non-sequitur, and misses the point of this passage. It is a relief to be saved by the blood of Christ – not an excuse. The salvation can only be appreciated in light of our failure to work righteousness of our own accord. The salvation of God cannot be pled without the acknowledgement that we are deserving of death. What we deserve commends God’s grace, in lavishing the opposite.

Others exempt themselves because sin of the race has been inherited. “I did not choose to sin this way,” they say. “Therefore, I should not face its penalty.” This argument has already been dealt with; Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is still valid, for it does not require the purpose of sin to be conveyed. The primary point of the argument is to show that we all, individually, have sinned, and this cannot be escaped.

Yet this adds weight to the salvation. The indignation of God will persist so long as sin persists. God will always be antagonistic to sin, since He remains in righteousness, and love, and truth. Salvation rescues us from indignation (Rom. 5:9,) and delivers us from the things that enabled that indignation (Rom. 6:15-23.)

The relationship between the two, then, is inseparable. Where there is no sin, there is no salvation. Where there is no condemnation, there is no necessity for justification. If we are already righteous, then we have no need to be told of the righteousness of God.

With great joy, then, we turn the page. Our silence is graciously given – for in it we are given the ears to hear God’s great answer – an answer that was foreknown before sin even entered the story (1 Pet. 1:19-20.) We have, in 1:18-3:20, been given a snapshot of the characteristics of God – kindness, forbearance, patience. We have been shown His good anger toward wrong, and His just judgment of that wrong. And, most importantly, we have been shown this unique “faithfulness,” which appears to operate outside the boundaries of these relative characteristics. It has enabled Him to preserve such an unrighteous race as ours, and even withhold His just verdict for an extended period of time. 

Join us in our study, then, concerning the justification of the individual, on the basis of Christ’s blood, through His faith at Golgotha, for the express goal of conveying His character to all creation, in love.

Yet now…

- GerudoKing