No One Is Righteous? He Who Practices Righteousness Is Righteous! Romans part 8 - David Bercot

What we're doing, this is going to take over a year, but we're looking at how the early Christians, the ones right after the apostles, before there was a state church, before there was a Roman Catholic church, how did they understand Romans? And so that's why we're quoting from them, not like, "Oh, because they say it, we have to believe it." It's my experience has been what they say makes a lot of sense, and I don't have to hide any scriptures. In other words, I don't have to disbelieve what Paul said there about no one is righteous. On the other hand, I don't have to disbelieve these other hundred verses that say we are, you know, that they give full weight to all the scriptures.

I saw this the first time I read them, you know, when I was just 35. It's like, wow. You know, I was used to always there's these scriptures you hid, and then there were these scriptures the other side hid, you know, and you'd argue and you'd pull out your favorite verses, they'd pull out their favorite verses, and it's like, hey, they look at all the verses. They don't hide anything. And boy, that changed my whole way of looking at the Bible.

We would be going through the book of Romans, and we're in chapter three. We're going to start chapter three today. The theme of the chapter, the whole chapter, is Salvation through Faith in Christ, although we'll be just getting to that at the end of today.

Paul starts off, of course, these chapters are all man-made. We've talked about, and last week we were looking at what he had to say about the Jews and the Gentiles, and he continues that discussion.

When I was in high school, which was before most of you were born, I guess, they would often play popular songs from the radio during the lunch hour. One of the songs they played, it was a Beatles song. Does anyone know who the Beatles are? Okay, good. Some hands up there.

Right. Okay. So it was a Beatles song called With a Little Help from My Friends. And the words went like this. What would you think if I sang out of tune? I wonder if Paul McCartney had me in mind when he wrote this.

Would you stand up and walk out on me? Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song and I'll try not to sing out of key. And then the chorus, oh, I get by with a little help from my friends. Yes, I get high with a little help from my friends. Oh, I'm going to try with a little help from my friends.

Now, I always assumed this was a song about friendship and the value of friends that we can lean on. I think the school officials must have thought that too, because we played it, like I say, in the school cafeteria.

I was actually in my 20s before I found out that the friends being spoken of in this song are drugs. It's not getting by with friends like we have. It's getting by with drugs. And, you know, I was clueless on that, and obviously the school was.

Have any of you ever heard that song before? Yeah, I knew Richard Wood. Yeah, okay. A number of you, even younger ones. So it's been around. Well, if you hear it, that's what it's talking about.

Now, I was just a good Jehovah's Witness living in a small town in South Texas. I was far removed from the drug culture and its lingo. I mean, even the word high, today you hear high, you think of drugs. But that was really the 60s when that had that connotation. Before then, it just meant you were elated. You were, you know, excited about something. You were high.

Now, I spoke English just like the Beatles spoke it, but we were worlds apart in our culture. We might use the same English words we did, but we didn't necessarily mean the same thing when we used the same words.

Now, the same thing happens today when Christians read the New Testament. Even Christians who studied New Testament Greek and have the competence to translate the scriptures, they are far removed from the culture and the literary style of Paul and the other New Testament writers. This is one reason why I've devoted most of my adult life in studying the early church, because it's not just a matter of knowing Greek. It's understanding the setting. Just like I couldn't understand the Beatles song, I knew English, but we were in two different cultural settings. And often it's the same way. Things that were immediately obvious to people living in that time period and that culture are completely hidden to someone today reading the same passage.

We don't get some of the things that they got. We can't help that, but we can learn from the people who live back there. And a good example is the first half of Romans chapter three that we're going to be looking at today.

In this passage, Paul is using a common literary device of his age. I mean, it's something you can use today as well. And that is, he carries on a debate with a hypothetical opponent. Now, I would have never got that. I've read Romans three, you know, wow, probably through at least two, three hundred or more times.

And it wasn't until I was working on the Romans commentary and started reading the early Christians, this same passage that I'd read so many times, wow, they're getting something very different out of it because they're realizing, okay, yeah, we see what Paul's doing here. He's carrying on this imaginary debate. Paul helps his readers reason to various questions about the law by dialoguing with a hypothetical Jewish opponent. Now, a lot of this would work for a Gentile too, but he's specifically at this point trying to bring his Jewish readers to help them to see where they need faith in Christ the same as anyone else for salvation. Now, this opponent poses a series of objections, and then Paul replies to them back and forth.

Again, I would have never got this.

Now, quite possibly, these objections were based on actual questions that various Jewish believers and unbelievers alike had asked Paul in the course of his ministry. He's probably not just making these up. It's things that probably people have asked, and so that's why he's addressing it in his letter.

Now, when the early Christians read chapter three of Romans, they totally realized what Paul was doing in this passage, but it's not as obvious, as I said, to people today reading the same thing.

We're just in a totally different culture. Okay, so this morning, like I said, we're looking at the first half of Romans three, but we're going to be looking at it through the eyes of the early Christians. They were, well, some of them just a generation or less removed from the apostles. Some were a century or so. The same Greek, the same basic culture.

Life in the world didn't keep changing every ten years like it does today.

Now, in the scripture text, we're going to be reading them. We'll have them up here. You can follow in your Bible if you like, but they will be up here on the screen. Now, I've put an annotation of who the speaker is, how the early Christians were understanding it. Okay, this is Paul answering, or no, this is his Jewish opponent. Okay, so let's look at the first one.

Romans 3:1. What advantage then has the Jew, or what profit is there in circumcision? Okay, this is not Paul asking, although it could be read that way, but this is his opponent because he's carrying on a dialogue. And the reason the question comes up is because in chapter two that we just were looking at last month, Paul has said that neither the law nor circumcision will bring salvation to the Jews. So Jews and Gentiles stand on equal ground before God.

So on Judgment Day, they're going to both be judged alike based on their godly works. We looked at that in Romans 2, that when Paul talks about Judgment Day, and for those of you who are here just for the first time, initial salvation does not depend on works. We don't have to do anything to get saved. But Paul says judgment is going to be based on our works, and Jesus very definitely says the same thing.

So Paul's opponent is asking, okay, if this is all true, what advantage is there to being a fleshly Jew? You're just saying circumcision. The only circumcision that matters is circumcision of the heart. A real Jew is one who is one inwardly. So what's the point of being a Jew? Why did God bring this in? What's the benefit in circumcision?

So Paul answers. He says much in every way. And he doesn't list all of these ways. We'll get some more later on as we go through Romans, but he just lists one, chiefly because the oracles of God were entrusted to them.

So Paul replies that over the centuries, the Jews have received many benefits that the other nations, the Gentiles, didn't receive. And he said the primary one is they were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means the scriptures. Okay, so they had the Old Testament. In particular, Paul is probably referring to the numerous messianic prophecies. So saying, okay, if circumcision doesn't matter, if keeping the minute regulations of the law doesn't matter, so what benefit did we get as Jews? And it's like, hey, you got an enormous benefit. You were given all of the scriptures, the oracles of God. They were all written by Jews, revealed to Jews by God.

And so through this, the Gentiles, they had natural law. They gave him some basics. They knew it was wrong to steal, wrong to murder, things like that. But boy, the Jews, man, you know that there's one God. You learn all about this God, about his qualities, the things that please him and not. I mean, you've had a huge advantage over the Gentiles.

So that's why he says in every way.

Okay, so let's, as we're moving through this discussion, God's faithfulness is not affected by man's unbelief. So the opponent now, but what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Now, I should explain a lot of these ones that we read in our Bible as questions. Sometimes the early Christians are reading them as statements. So this could be a statement, but some did not believe. Their unbelief will make the faithfulness of God without effect.

We have a wonderful advantage today with our modern languages and with English, but other languages today are the same. In ancient Greek, and it was in every ancient language, there's no question marks. There's no periods. You can't even say, okay, this sentence ends here and this sentence starts here. You can figure it out, but there's no period. The next sentence doesn't start with a capital letter. There's no commas. There's no parentheses. There's no quotation marks. If someone's talking, you got to figure out, is this someone saying this or what? I mean, they don't have any of that.

So yeah, often it's not clear. Is this a question or a statement? But he's saying, Paul would point out the Jews had been blessed with the law and the prophets, which contained the prophecies. So his Jewish opponent says, yeah, but some of the Jews didn't believe these prophecies. So how did it help us?

Well, unbelief on part of some of the Jews ended up causing the believing Jews to lose their promises and rewards. It's like, yeah, okay, let's just take for the sake of argument, we Jews have been unfaithful as a nation. So the fact that many of us, or most of us, are unfaithful, how's that going to affect these who believe? Are they going to lose everything too? Maybe God's going to just cancel all of his promises and withdraw his mercies and promises to mankind in general because humans have been so ungrateful.

All right, Paul answers. God forbid.

Yes, let God be true, but every man a liar. As it is written that you may be justified in your words. This is talking about God. It's being addressed to God that he's quoting from. That you, God, may be justified in your words and may prevail when you are judged. So Paul answers with a resounding God forbid. Even though man is often unfaithful, the blessings promised to those who believe and obey his Messiah, they remain unchanged. So it doesn't matter if it gets down to ten people. God is not going to withdraw his blessings and his promises. We can always bank on them. It doesn't matter if most of mankind laughs him off. If the time comes when most of mankind doesn't even believe in him, it's not going to change anything.

God will not be affected by that. So we can have that confidence. Man's response to God doesn't affect God's fidelity. Even though all humans are false to some degree, God is always truthful and faithful to his word. So, hey, we can relax. It's why someone like Michael Sattler could undergo what he did. He knew God's promises he could bank on. And if he followed the gospel, that he would please God. And he could depend on God to be there. And it didn't matter if there had been for a thousand years. Well, in his day, it wouldn't have been that long. But yeah, you don't drink the cup in communion. Well, he could read Jesus's clear words.

You know, take, drink. You know, this is my blood. I mean, if I go by what the scriptures say, God is going to be faithful, and I'm going to be found to be faithful. So when God's dealings with the Jews and mankind in general are judged, God will be justified. In other words, okay, the Jews here, they've complained about God. They've disobeyed him and all of that. And then God is on the other side. And yet he's been faithful. He sent him prophets to warn them. He forgave them numerous times. Even when he punished them, he forgave them, brought them back to their land.

Theodoret, one of the early Christians who commented on Romans, writes, Paul says, let us grant for argument's sake that not even one man offered the praise and honor due to God, but all were infected with it in gratitude, which is what he means when he says is every man a liar.

Paul argues, this is still Theodoret. Paul argues, what decrease would God's glory suffer from this? The blessed apostle observes the same thing in another place. If we are faithless, he remains faithful. He cannot deny himself. So it doesn't matter what we do. It will affect us what we do, but it's not going to change the way God deals with mankind. So again, if the whole church became corrupt, which it's not going to happen, God would still be faithful. What he has promised will still happen. I'm not saying that we won't be punished, that we won't lose our salvation if we're unfaithful, but that God will not withdraw his promises to those who are faithful. He never denies himself.

Okay, John Chrysostom. What Paul says is something like this. I do not actually mean that no one believed. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, suppose that all were unbelieving. Well, if that were the case, God would be justified that much more. All right? So our unfaithfulness just highlights how faithful God is. Now, Paul is using that word justified, and we're going to see it many more times in Romans. So I think it's important right at this outset, we understand what does that word mean? Because it's thrown around so much today, and I've heard so many explanations. Justified means this or that. And they used to give it some kind of theological meaning.

Okay, so what do the scriptures mean when they say that somebody is justified? Because today, people imagine that this is a theological word. I mean, it can be used in a theological discussion, but it was an ordinary Greek word, a Greek word you found in everyday life. It wasn't some special theological term.

Now, many Christians today, like I say, imagine it's a theological word, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Greek word, dikai ao, was an ordinary Greek word that simply meant to declare righteous or to vindicate. Okay, and the setting is usually in a judicial setting.

Chrysostom again. If there could be a trial and an examination of the things that God had done for the Jews and the things that the Jews had done towards him, the victory would be with God. All the right would be on his side. So that's what he means by justified. It's like if two people are in court, they've got a dispute. Okay, it's the one who is found to be in the right is justified, declared righteous. Okay, he's saying between the Jews and God, okay, yeah, how did they respond to him versus how did he respond to them? And he is the one justified. It's been shown, you know, we can see, okay, he was faithful always to his promises.

He even generously forgave, was merciful, all that. Obviously, he's in the right. In the Septuagint, the reason I mentioned the Septuagint is because it's the Old Testament in Greek. It was the first Greek translation, the first translation ever made of scripture, and it's the Old Testament in Greek. So we can see, we can go back in the Septuagint and see, see these same words used in the New Testament and see how they're used in everyday life. So in the Septuagint, justify is nearly always used in a judicial setting, both civil and criminal. In a criminal case, when a person was justified, it meant he was found not guilty. Okay, so in a criminal one, if you said he was justified, it meant, yeah, he was declared innocent.

He was right. He was just. In a civil dispute between two parties, the one who was justified was the one who was declared to be in the right. And this, of course, occurred all the time. All right, so it's just, it's an ordinary word, usually used in a judicial setting. It doesn't have to be, but that's the normal setting. Okay, we're going to look at just two examples. For example, God told the Jews, this is in the law in Exodus, you shall abstain from every unjust thing. You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous. And listen to this, and you shall not justify, same Greek word, the wicked for bribes.

Okay, so you've got a guilty person here. He's done, you know, whatever. He's stolen and robbed. He's brought before the judge. And God is saying, okay, you're not to take a bribe and then justify him, declare him righteous. Okay, that is evil when that happens. Okay, so that's a clear example of justifying. Okay, that, oh, you're going to say he's innocent when he's really guilty. Now, as we're going to see, not this week, but as we go through Romans, this is exactly what God does for us, but we don't have to bribe him. He doesn't accept bribes. But when we become a Christian, we receive justification even though we are totally guilty. He declares us innocent at the time of our conversion.

So this thing actually happens, but not in an evil sense that he's talking about here. All right, another example from Chronicles. And again, if anyone sins against his neighbor and he comes and swears before the altar in this house, then you will hear from heaven and act and judge your servants to recompense, that is to punish the transgressor by bringing his way back on his own head and justifying, the same Greek word there again, justifying the righteous, rewarding him according to his righteousness. Okay, so again, that's what justify means. Declare righteous. Okay, so not a magical word. And I've heard people try to explain it like it is, and it's not.

Okay, the next topic is still in this discussion. God has the right to punish sins. Now, this opponent, of course, he's a literary opponent that Paul has created, a hypothetical opponent. He makes some interesting arguments. This next one is interesting.

But if our unrighteousness displays the righteousness of God, what will we say? God is unjust who inflicts wrath. And then Paul adds, I speak in the manner of men. Okay, so Paul's hypothetical opponent throws out a new objection. Okay, you've just shown that our unrighteousness makes God's righteousness stand out. He's justified because of the way that we act. If our unrighteousness serves the purpose of displaying the righteousness of God, then God is unjust to punish us because our sins highlight God's own faithfulness, which is something good. So, hey, we've done God a favor.

Just put this in modern-day terms, okay? Let's say some guy has gone out, robbed a bank. In the process, he kills the bank guard. He then kidnaps one of the customers there in the bank, drags him out for protection, uses him as a human shield, steals a car to use as a getaway car. Okay, he's brought before the judge. I mean, you know, totally guilty. And he makes this argument. And you can judge whether he would get very far with this. Your honor, in this community, you are seen by everyone as an upright, outstanding citizen.

And the reason why people recognize you as being so outstanding is because there's creeps like me who go and, you know, kill people and rob banks, kidnap people. So just think about it. It's because of people like me that you are so exalted. And people look up to you. And if there weren't scum like me around killing people and doing that, well, no one would appreciate the righteous people. So obviously, you need to let me go.

You think anyone gets any mileage? Well, that's what this guy's arguing, you know, in the hypothetical discussion here. Chrysostom says, a man may say, why then am I to be punished, I who have been the cause of God's victory through the wrong that I did to him?

It should be noted that the early Christians, if you're looking in an ordinary Bible where it says God is unrighteous who takes vengeance, it changes it into a question. Is God unrighteous? But they're reading it as an assertion. As I say, in the Greek, it's always just a guess of, I shouldn't say a guess. You see, you can pretty well tell, but there's no question marks, no special way to absolutely tell a question from a statement. So they all read it as an assertion because it's this opponent making it. God is unrighteous who takes vengeance. That's why Paul says, I speak in the manner of man to show that I'm not saying this. This is what this hypothetical opponent is saying.

Now, I'm not making this up. I would have never figured this out myself. Okay. So like I say, this is his argument that God's unjust to punish us because we've made him appear righteous. The honor says, here the holy apostle introduces a conclusion in the person of his adversary. It was necessary that he should bring forward the objection raised by others, yet he shows its absurdity by his disavowal of it. So, I mean, just like all of you, when I was giving you the illustration, everybody was kind of smiling like, that's a dumb argument to make before a judge. And this is what Paul is saying. This is really dumb. For he, the opponent is saying, or Paul is saying, it is not I who speak in this manner.

Rather, I've only stated the position of others. That's what he means when he says, I speak as a man. Chrysostom says basically the same thing. Note Paul's apostolic reverence, for after saying, God is unrighteous who takes vengeance. And like I say, our Bibles change that to, is God unrighteous who takes vengeance? And I understand why they do that, because that would be so misunderstood. He adds, I speak as a man. He means, if anyone were to argue in the way that men reason, okay? And of course, his answer is, God forbid, then how will God judge the world?

Just because our sins cause God's perfection to stand out more clearly by way of contrast, it's no way excuses our sin. I think we all know that this is just a poor argument. But apparently, people were saying that is why Paul has brought it up. He's not just throwing out things just to throw them out. In fact, we're going to look at one of the more absurd ones and show that it is actually what people were saying back then about Christians. Furthermore, if we follow the objector's argument to its logical conclusion, God would be prevented from judging the world, from punishing the wicked. Hey, our wickedness has made you look good, God, so we should get a free pass.

And since God's hypothetical opponent is a Jew, he well knows that God is going to judge the world. For the Old Testament prophets spoke about the day of judgment. There's a number of places, Joel 3:11 and 12, through 12, assemble and come, all you nations, and gather together all around. Cause your mighty ones to go down there, O Lord. Let the nations be wakened and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat, for there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations. So there's going to be a judgment day. It's been there in the Old Testament. It's not something new that Paul is bringing out. Okay, so sinners have no excuse.

The Jewish objector keeps trying. But if through my falsehood, the truth of God has more abounded to his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner? Back to the same argument. Okay, look, I've brought glory to you by sinning, so why am I punished? Okay, so he's saying his falsehoods have actually brought glory to God because they highlight God's truthfulness. Yeah, what a rotten liar I am, see? Now, people wouldn't understand or appreciate a truthful person if they didn't have liars like me around. But yeah, you've heard all of my lies. I'm not talking about myself here.

The opponent is saying this, okay? That, yeah, okay, so our lies make God's truthfulness stand out. And it's the same lousy argument. So why should God condemn him as a sinner since God has benefited from his falsehood? And he hasn't benefited. The auditor writes, it is one of the most absurd things to speak in such a manner. For the sentence of God is just, for the sentence of God is just, for it would be the most extreme injustice if those who advanced his glory would nevertheless suffer vengeance from him and await eternal punishment. So he's saying sinners don't advance God's glory. Now, this week I was, I'm dealing at the end of Romans and writing a chapter on Augustine and how he changed the whole way people looked at Romans.

And so I was reading a number of Calvinist works, and they actually say it brings God glory to punish the wicked. This brings glory on God when we see him punish the wicked. And it's like, wow, this is from the mouth of Calvinists. I mean, if it wasn't, I wouldn't even believe it. But that's their own words, okay? It's like, this is really perverted. It's about as perverted as this hypothetical opponent, okay? God does not get any glory from our wickedness, nor from punishing our wickedness.

But if this is, but this is ridiculous reasoning for my own unworthiness can in no way advance the glory due to God for his kindness. Okay, Paul, he's kind of wrapping this up. May we not instead say, let us do evil that good may come? For so we are blasphemed and some assert that we say this. Their condemnation is just. So Paul is saying, okay, if you're going to go that far, we might as well say, yeah, let's do evil because good's going to come of it. And he says, people are actually saying that about us. Clement of Alexandria would have written this about 80 years after the apostle John's death. Some claim that we say, let us do evil that good may come from it.

Such an argument is justly condemned. These are the kind of people who, when reading scripture, twist the meaning of it by changing the tone of their voice or by changing accent marks and the like. They bend the meaning to fit their own desires. And we've all seen that it's so easy to do that with scripture. And it's easy to do it without trying to do it on purpose, that you can come up with the wrong meaning accidentally.

Malachi, this is still Clement of Alexandria, speaks of such ones. You have provoked God with your words, but you say, how have we provoked him? And that you say, everyone who does evil is a pleasing object in the sight of the Lord, and he takes pleasure in such ones. I mean, this is just like Paul's opponent, okay? And this is Malachi saying this. And where is the God of justice?

Now, this is a pagan who wrote this, okay? In his writing, it's only been preserved because Origen wrote a response to it. And in his response, he puts down what Celsus, the pagan, said, and then his response. This is what Celsus wrote. Let us hear what kind of persons these Christians invite. He really was attacking Christians. They say that everyone who is a sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and basically whoever is lamentable, he will receive the kingdom of God.

Well, you can see where he got that, but he's twisting what Christians were saying. Yeah, that's the kind of people Christians did invite to enter the kingdom of God. They invited everybody, but they extended it, yes, to sinners, to whoever was lamentable, ignorant. It didn't matter who you were. The offer was open to everybody. But they also taught that such persons had to leave their sins behind them.

Nevertheless, Celsus's criticism shows how unbelievers were twisting Christian teaching in order to blaspheme them. As Paul said, their condemnation is just. The one saying this, oh, you Christians, yeah, you're saying, you know, it's good to be a sinner. I mean, if they just listened a little bit, they would know. No, Christians are not saying that. They're saying that God does love sinners and he offers salvation to them. But Christians were not saying, never have, that, oh, yeah, just keep going on sinning.

Well, maybe I shouldn't say they never have. We're just going to look at something. If this ancient accusation against Christians seems absurd, we should note that Luther counseled something almost as preposterous in a letter to his colleague Melanchthon. And this is Luther writing this, and it's taking it down to the level. Okay, if you are a preacher of grace, then preach true grace, not a fictitious one. If grace is true, you must bear a true sin, not fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners.

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe in rejoicing Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here, we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.

Rather, as Peter says, we look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Is that shocking to you? I mean, it should be. We've probably read it here before, but sin boldly. I mean, that's like, you are not getting the message of Christ. That is not the point he's trying to get across. Yes, he does forgive. And even horrible sins can be forgiven if we're repentant. We don't go out and tell someone to sin boldly just to show Christ's mercy. I mean, it's basically what's being argued there in Romans. It's really absurd. And he ends up doing the same thing that this hypothetical opponent is doing.

Okay, the next, now Paul moves into his point that he's driving it. Jews and Gentiles are both under sin. What then are we better than they? Now, we speaking as a Jew, no, in no way, for we have proved before that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. Okay, so Paul now has ended his dialogue with his hypothetical opponent. He takes it up again throughout Romans, but for right now, he's finished. He returns to his main argument that he started developing back in chapter two. And again, these chapters are man-made. I mean, this was all just one long letter, no paragraphs even. I mean, it's just all one long thing. Okay, it's helpful to us.

It's been divided into chapters and verses, but you have to remember this. Yeah, you can't just start with chapter three and forget what he said in chapter two. Okay, he's been leading up to this whole point that both Jews and Gentiles are under condemnation of sin. Both need the salvation offered through Christ. Jews have just as much need of his salvation as the Gentiles.

Origen writes, both groups come to salvation not on the basis of their own righteousness, but on the basis of God's mercy. So yes, it was good that most of the Jews coming to Christ, they would have come with a lot cleaner background than most of the Gentiles. But they still, their own righteousness still was not sufficient to give them salvation. We all need God's mercy. We all need the sacrifice and blood of Jesus Christ.

The auditor writes, Paul began by speaking about those who were strangers to the law. He's talking about the Gentiles. That's back in chapter one. He then addressed those who were under the law. So yeah, going back to the beginning, Paul first, if you remember, he listed all of the sins of the Gentiles. He blessed them pretty strongly. But again, the point wasn't to just rebuke people. It was to lead people to Christ. Then he goes to the law. He convicted the Gentiles of having transgressed the natural law. And then he convicted the Jews of transgressing the Mosaic law. They had all become worthy of the severest punishment. In this manner, Paul imitates a skillful physician because the physician first points out to his patients the dangerous nature of their disorder.

But then he offers the assistance of his healing remedies. It's like a doctor telling you, hey, you've got cancer. Okay, he wouldn't be doing you a favor to not let you know. He starts off, he's got to let you know how serious your situation is, or you've got a bad heart, whatever it is. Okay, but it didn't just stop there. He said, okay, but we've got a way to treat this. And this is what God is doing. He's pointing out the sins that everybody, Jew and Gentiles, you need salvation. But thankfully, that salvation is there.

Paul does likewise, having demonstrated the sin of both parties and having proved them deserving of punishment, he next produces his medicine of faith. And he reveals the loving kindness of God's arrangement.

Okay, so now, just to drive his point home, I mean, he wants to make sure his readers totally get it. You need the blood of Christ. You need God's forgiveness. Even if, like so many of you were raised in a Christian home, you don't have this big long list of really dark sins. I mean, you haven't robbed any banks. You haven't done this, this and that.

But you still have a long list of sins. They may not be maybe as serious as the sins of somebody down the street, but you still have them. You still need God's salvation. And so Paul now begins listing sins, Romans 3:10 through 18. Okay, now he quotes from the long passage that's found in Psalm 13:3 of the Septuagint. In the Masoretic text, this is Psalm 14:3. If you have a Bible with the Septuagint, well, either way, turn in your Bible. If you've got the Septuagint, it's going to be Psalm 13:3.

If you have the Masoretic text, that would be, you know, if you had the King James, New King James, any other Bible than one with the Septuagint, it's going to be Psalm 14:3. Okay, but I want you to turn there in your Bible to, we're going to be quoting Paul up here. I want you to see it with your own eyes. Psalm 14:3, it kind of starts part of it in Psalm 14, or 13, I'm sorry, in the Septuagint, 13. Part of it begins back in verse one. If you don't have the Septuagint, if you've got just a regular English Bible, look at Psalm 14:3, all right?

Okay, Paul says, as it is written, so he's quoting from scripture. Now, he does not quote verbatim. I don't know if he's quoting from memory or he's just doing a little paraphrasing. It's fairly close, but he doesn't quote it precisely.

There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who understands. And I think that you'll see that in Psalm 13:1 in the Septuagint, that part. There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside. They have all together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb. With their tongues, they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips. That's a poisonous snake. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways. And the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Okay, so like I say, it's not verbatim from the Septuagint, but I think you've been able to follow most of what he says. Now, if you have a Bible with the Masoretic text for the Old Testament, in other words, an ordinary English Bible, then turn to Psalm 14:3. And that reads, they have all turned aside. They have together become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one. That's it. It just stops there. That is it.

I mean, I had never realized this until I was working on this commentary. You know, several years ago, I gave a message on the Septuagint and gave some examples. I wasn't even aware of this one. And I'll tell you why I wasn't, because my Bible in the New Testament, when Paul quotes this, instead of, you know, owning up and saying he's quoting from the Septuagint and you're not going to find this, it lists it like, well, he pulled this from Malachi, this, and this is from Joel, and this one here is Isaiah, and it looked like there's a whole array, and I believed him. You know, I didn't realize he's quoting it all from one passage there in the Psalms.

So I had to choose just one piece of evidence that someone said, all right, David, just you're allowed one piece of evidence of why we should be using the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. This would be my verse. I mean, wow, look at the huge difference. I mean, in the Masoretic text, you have like two sentences there. You've got this whole passage, and Paul says it is written. He's quoting right directly from it.

So there's a huge difference there between the Septuagint and the Masoretic. Let's talk about it a minute. I mean, either the Septuagint has added a lot of material that is not God's word, or the Masoretic text has omitted a lot of material that is God's word. I mean, it's one or the other. Either the Septuagint's added all of this stuff that wasn't in the Bible, or the Masoretic text has left off a bunch of stuff that was God's word, and it's left it out. So which one is it?

Well, as we've seen, Paul quotes from the Septuagint. So if all of this extra material in the Septuagint is not God's inspired word, why was Paul quoting it? And I mean, to me, it's almost unanswerable. It is such so black and white. And like I say, I didn't even know it until just, you know, a few months ago myself.

And Paul, I mean, all through, I mean, all of his letters, he quotes from the Septuagint is his Bible. So if all this extra material is not God's inspired word, why is Paul quoting it? I think the answer is obvious that the Masoretic text is missing a large piece of God's word. It's still a useful, I mean, it's better than having no Bible. I mean, it's the Bible I grew up with, and it's what I used until not that many years ago. But you're missing a lot of things. I mean, you read the New Testament, and it's like Paul's quoting something, and you go back, and I know you've all experienced this, and you go back, and you look in the Old Testament, and it's like, it doesn't say what Paul is saying.

That's because your Old Testament is the Masoretic text. The Christians, the whole church, used the Septuagint. Well, that was the Bible of all the Greek-speaking Jews, and it was the Bible of all of the Christians until the Roman Catholic Church came along.

Okay, so are there no righteous humans? I mean, he just read that passage, and we hear that quoted a lot, or I say we, I heard it quoted so much when I was an evangelical Protestant. I mean, that was, boy, that was that verse, you know, there's no one good, no one is righteous. It's right there in the Bible. And it is right there in the Bible.

But are we really quoting it honestly? Paul is getting a point across. It's why he's doing, he's trying to show that we all need salvation. And it's right to quote it in that sense. But many Christians today quote this verse as if it represents all that scripture teaches about the righteousness of humans. I mean, I heard it all the time. No one is righteous.

No, you can't do any good as a human. No one does good. You can't do anything good. Christ can do it through you, but you can't do anything good, etc. But it's not all that the scripture teaches. In fact, that verse right there stands almost alone in the entire Old Testament. In contrast to it, you have it, and then on the other side, you have over a hundred verses, I'm not exaggerating, in the Old Testament that speak of human beings as being righteous. I know that because I did a word search to see how many verses there were. I'm going to just give you a few samples.

Then the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation." Okay, so if no one's righteous, he just got through saying Noah is. Psalm 34:15, "The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their cry." How can his eyes be on them if there isn't anyone who's righteous?

Psalm 37:25, "I have been young, and now I'm old. Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken." Well, if there's no one righteous, that's a meaningless statement. Nor his descendants begging bread. That couldn't be true if nobody's righteous.

Proverbs 10:16, "The labor of the righteous leads to life. The wages of the wicked to sin. No grave trouble will overtake the righteous, but the wicked shall be filled with evil." Proverbs 15:29, "The Lord is far away from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous." Well, how can he hear their prayer if no one is righteous? And this is all written before Christ. This isn't like, "Oh, well, now he counts as righteous in Christ." This is the Old Testament before Christ had died for mankind.

Proverbs 27, "The righteous man walks in his integrity. His children are blessed after him." Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

And it's not just the Old Testament that speaks of various humans as being righteous. Here's a few examples from the New Testament. Luke 1:5-6, "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth."

Get this, "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." This is the New Testament. Matthew 13:17, "This is not just the New Testament. This is Jesus speaking. For assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it." So how could righteous men desire to see? He says, "Many righteous men desire to see this day if there was nobody who was righteous."