Lessons # 93 and 94
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New American Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
+ 4. Text is based on 1984 edition of the NIV +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanity’s sinfulness (Rom 3:9-20)
9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know.”18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
We are still considering the first thing Apostle Paul discoursed after introducing the theme of God’s righteousness revealed through the gospel which is God’s response to unrighteousness that he discoursed in Romans 1:18-3:20. Specifically, we have started to consider God’s judgment on humanity’s sinfulness in Romans 3:5-20. We noted that in Romans 3:5-8 the apostle demonstrated that God’s judgment or punishment on humans confirms His righteous character. So, with that, the apostle proceeds with the discourse on humanity’s sinfulness in the section that is before us.
We begin with three assertions we believe best summarize the section that is concerned with humanity’s sinfulness before we get into any specifics. The first assertion is that there is no exception to sinfulness, that is, to say that all humans are sinful. This is what the apostle communicated in verse 9. The second assertion is humanity’s sinfulness is attested by the OT Scripture as he proved by citing various passages in the OT Scripture. This he did in verses 10 to 18. The third assertion is that humanity’s sinfulness is specifically supported by some functions of the law as he discoursed in verses 19 and 20. From these assertions that summarize the section of Romans 3:9-20, we derive a message we believe the Holy Spirit wants us to convey to you. This message is this: Humanity’s sinfulness is universal as attested by the Scripture and specifically supported by some functions of the law. This message will become clearer as we expound the passage before us.
Apostle Paul began his discourse of our passage with the first of the two rhetorical questions that he posed in it. The first rhetorical question is given in Romans 3:9 What shall we conclude then? Literally, the Greek reads What then? The word “what” that begins the verse in the Greek is translated from a Greek interrogative pronoun (tis) that may mean “who, which, what?” It may mean “why” as an interrogative expression of reason for something as in the Lord Jesus’ question during His Sermon on the Mount that indicates believers should not worry regarding the necessities of life as we read in Matthew 6:28:
“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
Apostle Paul used it to ask question as to the reason he and others who preached the gospel would risk their lives if there were no resurrection, as we read in 1 Corinthians 15:30:
And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?
In our verse of Romans 3:9, it is used with the meaning “what?” and it is followed by a Greek particle (oun) that is used in two general ways. It may be used as a marker of continuation of a narrative so that it may be translated “then, so, now.” It may also be used as a marker of inference, denoting that what it introduces is the result of or an inference from what precedes in which case it may be translated “therefore, then.” It is in this second usage with the meaning “then” that the word is used in our verse to indicate that it is a part of a formula the apostle uses in a question when what follows or seems to follow is from what has been said. In this case, the formula may be translated “what, then, are we to conclude?” or “what then? i.e. how then does the matter stand?”
Our examination of the Greek words that literally means “what?” and “then” indicates when the apostle posed the first rhetorical question What shall we conclude then? or literally What then? his thought went back to the Jewish advantages he expounded in Romans 3:1-4. He particularly must have thought of the implied advantage of the Jews in that despite their failures God was faithful in fulfilling His promises to them. You see, if all humans are sinful and so are punished by God but the Jews enjoyed God’s faithfulness in that He fulfilled His promises to them because of His own character, such could cause the Jews, for example, to think that they must not be sinful as the rest of humanity that are not the recipients of fulfilled promises as the Jews. This being the case, the apostle posed a second rhetorical question that is intended to disavow such a thought or notion and also in effect answers the first rhetorical question.
The second rhetorical question is Are we any better? The NIV2011 reads do we have any advantage? The expression “any better” or “have any advantage” is translated from a Greek verb (proechō) that appears only here in the Greek NT. Outside of the NT, the word may mean “to hold up as an excuse” or “have the advantage over.” In our passage of Romans 3:9, there are three possible ways of translating the Greek verb used. First, it could be translated “do we excuse ourselves?” Second, it could be translated “are we surpassed?” Third, “have we any advantage?” The first question is possible but unlikely since what follows indicate universal humanity so that God’s faithfulness to His promises to the Jews would not mean they can be excused from universal sinfulness. The second although plausible would not make much sense because the apostle is not comparing who sins most, Jews or Gentiles. Therefore, the third question makes more sense and fits the context better although it may appear to contradict what the apostle stated regarding the advantage of the Jews but here, he is concerned with human sinfulness and so the advantage he had in mind is that of not being sinful. That aside, the use of the pronoun “we” in the question is a reference to the apostle and the Jews, especially those in Rome, that would hear the reading of this epistle.
Anyway, the apostle answered the second rhetorical question in an emphatic manner beginning with the expression of Romans 3:9 Not at all! Literally, the Greek reads Certainly not. It is our assertion that the apostle answered in an emphatic manner the second rhetorical question. This is firstly because of the word “not” is translated from a Greek negative particle (ou) that is an objective negative, denying the reality of alleged fact fully and absolutely in contrast to another Greek negative (mē) that is a subjective negative, implying a conditional and hypothetical negation. Thus, the apostle used the negative particle rendered “not” in our verse to state emphatically his answer to the second rhetorical question. Secondly, the expression “at all” of the NIV or “certainly” in the literal translation is translated from a Greek adverb (pantōs) that may be used to express inevitable conclusion in view of data provided so it may mean “doubtless, of course” as the word is used to report the false conclusion the islanders of Malta reached about Apostle Paul when a snake attached itself on his hand, as we read in Acts 28:4:
When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.”
The translators of the NIV used the meaning “must” in translating the Greek adverb here since the sentence of the NIV This man must be a murderer is more literally Doubtless this man is a murderer. The adverb may be used for a strong assumption or affirmation with the meaning “certainly, surely, by all means” as Apostle Paul used the word in his strong affirmation derived from his quotation of OT Scripture in support of the fact that those who minister the word of God should be supported from that ministry as we read in 1 Corinthians 9:10:
Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.
In our passage of Romans 3:9, the word by itself has the sense of “assuredly,” that is, “without a doubt.” However, since it is used in our passage with a negative in answer to a question, it means “not at all” or “not in the least.” Hence, both the negative particle and the Greek adverb he used convey that the apostle was emphatic in his response to the second rhetorical question.
It is not only that the apostle was emphatic in answering the second rhetorical question in a negative fashion, but he proceeded to give the explanation for his emphatic response as we read in the last sentence of Romans 3:9 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. We stated that the apostle proceeded to provide an explanation because literally the Greek reads for we have previously accused both Jews and Greeks all to be under sin. The word “for” that is omitted in the NIV84 but appeared in the NIV2011 is translated from a Greek conjunction (gar) that has several usages. For example, it can be used as a marker of inference with the meaning “so, then, by all means” or it can be used as a marker of cause or reason for something in which case it may be translated “for, because.” In our verse, it is used as a marker of explanation and so should be translated “for.”
The expression “already made the charge” in the sentence of Romans 3:9 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin is translated from a Greek verb (proaitiaomai) that appears only here in Greek NT; it has the sense of “to charge previously.” The use of the pronoun “we” here refers to the apostle since he is the one that wrote this epistle. No doubt, the apostle used a secretary as stated in Romans 16:22:
I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.
Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the apostle would have included him since he would write down what the apostle dictated to him. Thus, the use of “we” is what some describe as “editorial we.”
The word “Jews” in the sentence of Romans 3:9 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin is translated from a Greek noun (Ioudaios) that we examined extensively in a previous study. The part of our consideration of the word “Jews” that we review here is how the apostle used the word in his epistles. We stated that in modern time, the word is used in different ways because of the existence of modern state of Israel. A person is accepted as a Jew by Orthodox Judaism if the person has been born to a Jewish mother and who, according to them, has not apostatized in the sense of being a Christian or converted to any religion. Others would include a Jew as one who has a Jewish father or who has converted to Judaism. Of course, Jewish leaders prefer the term “Israel” to describe the Hebrew people. Nonetheless, the term “Jew” may refer to a Hebrew person that practices Mosaic tradition. We say this because when Apostle Paul identified himself as a Jew, he meant one who was born a Hebrew that practiced the Mosaic tradition. He referred himself as a Jew during his address to a Jewish audience in Jerusalem as narrated in Acts 22:3:
“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
Here he associated being a Jew to the law, but he also associated being a Jew as that which one is born, as in Galatians 2:15:
“We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’
To him, it is probably inconceivable that one would be a Jew without being a Hebrew, as we can gather from his description of himself as a Hebrew in Philippians 3:5:
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;
The point is while the term “Jew” may be used to include those who are not born as Jews but have converted to Judaism, that is not what the apostle would have had in mind when he wrote the phrase of Romans 3:9 Jews and Gentiles alike. He would have meant naturally born Hebrews who are considered different from Gentiles.
The word “Gentiles” is translated from a Greek noun (Hellēn) that may refer to persons who are ethnically Greeks and those who are not but have been influenced by Greek education or culture so in a sense it could refer to those who are civilized or educated in some measure as that is the way Apostle Paul used it in describing those who do not understand the message of the cross because they are preoccupied with wisdom as recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:22:
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
The Greek word translated “Greek” may mean in a broader sense all persons who came under the influence of Greek, as distinguished from Israel’s culture so that the word may even mean “Gentile.” It is in this sense that the word is used to describe those who responded to the gospel message of apostles Paul and Barnabas as stated in Acts 14:1:
At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed.
The phrase Jews and Gentiles is literally Jews and Greeks. In our passage of Romans 3:9, the word means “Gentile” in the broader sense of all persons who came under the influence of Greek, as distinguished from Israel’s culture, with the primary focus on polytheism (belief in the existence of many gods) in contrast with “monotheism” (the belief in the existence of one God). We are saying that when the apostle used the word “Gentiles”, primary in his mind was that of religion or worship. We say this because our Greek word is one the apostle usually used to make distinction between Jews and Gentiles as it pertains to ethnicity as he used the Greek word in stating there is no ethnicity in Christ in Galatians 3:28:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Truly, the thing that distinguished Gentiles from Jews was a matter of religion or worship. It is true that circumcision was used as that which distinguished the Jews from Gentiles but there were other people group that were circumcised in the ancient world but were not in right spiritual relationship with God of Israel as declared in Jeremiah 9:25–26:
25 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— 26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.”
Circumcision is a sign that Israel is in a covenant relationship with Yahweh but not so with the nations mentioned that were circumcised although not on the eighth day per say. Thus, for Israel to be described as uncircumcised in heart is to say that they were not living in accordance with the terms of their covenant with Yahweh. That aside, the primary difference between Jews and the other peoples is that of the worship of Yahweh, the creator. Therefore, it is fitting that when the apostle wanted to focus on the matter of worship or religion that he used our Greek word that is translated “Gentile.” You see, there is another Greek noun (ethnos) that refers to a group of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions and so means “nation, people.” This Greek word is one that is predominantly translated “Gentile” in the English versions. In the epistle of the apostle to the Romans, this second Greek word is translated with the word “Gentile” 23 times unlike the Greek word that is used in Romans 3:9 that is translated only 5 times. Of course, it is most likely that the apostle did not use the Greek word that is more frequently translated “Gentiles” in his epistle to the Romans probably because that word may also be used to describe a Gentile who is a true believer in the one God since this Greek word is used to describe believers in Christ as those that Peter ate with in Antioch but from whom he withdrew his fellowship because he wanted to please some in Jerusalem as described in Galatians 2:12:
Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
The point we are emphasizing is that the Greek word in Romans 3:9 translated “Gentiles” is used by the apostle to focus on those who are polytheistic in contrast to the Jews who are monotheistic.
All the same, the apostle asserted that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners as that is what he conveyed in the sentence of Romans 3:9 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. The word “under” is translated from a Greek preposition (hypo) that may mean “under.” The word “under” could mean “a position below an object or another position” as it is used to describe the placement of all things below Jesus Christ or placing all things under His authority, as we read in Ephesians 1:22:
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
The word “under” may mean “a marker of that which is in a controlling position,” hence may mean “under the control of, under obligation.” It is in this sense of being under the control of the law that the word is used by Apostle Paul to indicate how he adjusted to the Jews as one under or obligated to the law in order to win them for Christ as he stated in 1 Corinthians 9:20:
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
It is in this sense of being under the control of a person or a thing that our word is used in our passage of Romans 3:9 although the thing humans are under its control is sin.
The word “sin” is translated from a Greek noun (hamartia) that refers to departure from either human or divine standards of uprightness and so means “sin,” the action itself as well as its results. Thus, the word is used by Apostle Paul to describe to the Corinthians what would be the state of those who believe in Christ if there is no resurrection as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:17:
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
The word may mean “a state of sinfulness” as the word is used by those who rebuked the man born blind that Jesus healed to describe him for his reply to them as recorded in John 9:34:
To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.
The word may mean “guilt,” that is, the moral consequence of having sinned as that is the sense of the word in John 9:41:
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
The sentence your guilt remains is literally your sin remains. It is not the actual event of sinning that is in view but the consequence of sinning hence the meaning is “guilt” in John 9:41. In our passage of Romans 3:9, the word means “sin” in the sense of sin personified as “a destructive and depraved principle reigning over unbelievers and persisting in believers.”
Be that as it may, the apostle wrote in Romans 3:9 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. There is no specific verse where the apostle made the charge he referenced prior to this point in his epistle. He had indicated that Gentiles are involved in idolatry and so manifest they are sinners in their conduct as described in Romans 1:28–31:
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
The apostle also indicated that Jews who had the law did not keep it implying they were sinners as we may gather from Romans 2:17–23:
17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
The apostle in a previous rhetorical question implies that all humans are sinful as we may gather from Romans 3:5:
But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)
These passages notwithstanding, there is no single place where the apostle stated that Jews and Gentiles are sinners as in the sentence of Romans 3:9 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. Nonetheless, his point is derived from what the apostle had discoursed in Romans 1:18-2:29. Anyhow, it is because of this sentence that we stated the apostle’s first assertion is that there is no exception to sinfulness. So, the apostle declared unequivocally that all humans are sinful or sinners.
The second assertion of the apostle in the passage we are studying is that humanity’s sinfulness is attested by the OT Scripture as he proved by citing various passages in the Scripture. This, as we stated previously, he did in verses 10 to 18 of this third chapter of Romans.
Proclamations or teachings concerning the Christian life that are to be believed must be rooted in the Scripture as that is the final authority of our faith. Unfortunately, we are living in a time when many Christians are not interested or are unwilling to devote themselves to the in-depth study of the word of God but are content with catch phrases or sentences instead of the full doctrines of the Scripture. Satan is not afraid of such catch phrases or sentences that may sound good but are not rooted in a particular Scripture. Take for example, there is the popular saying with respect to forgiveness that says, “forgive and forget.” This sounds great but does not really do much to help a believer. Some have even become discouraged about forgiveness for the wrongs that others have done to them that they claim to have forgiven. The problem is that those who take such simple expression as God’s truth have found themselves in great difficulties or at odds with their experiences. This is because although they have declared in their minds that they have forgiven a person, they are unable to forget the wrong they have suffered and so they conclude that since they are unable to forget the wrong, it must mean they have not forgiven the individual. The expression implies that a person should suffer amnesia as that is a way to forget something of the past. The Scripture never says that we will forget what is in the past per say. Of course, if you know your Scripture you could come back with what Apostle Paul said was his attitude towards his past failures as indicated in Philippians 3:13:
Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead.
The word “forgetting” is translated from the Greek verb (epilanthanomai) that means “to forget, neglect, no longer caring for.” The word forgetting must be understood in a practical way. It does not mean that you go blank or have a temporary memory loss about your past. This would be wrong; for after all, the apostle had in the preceding verses of the third chapter of Philippians narrated his past experiences that he still remembers. Thus, what the apostle meant to convey is that of disregarding the things in the past. This is what a person who forgives wrongs done to individual will do when the person forgives. The individual will never forget the wrong, but when that comes up in the person’s mind, the individual disregards it and treats the offender without regards to that sin since that is what should take place in forgiveness. Of course, what I have done is to give a more detailed explanation than merely saying “forgive and forget.” There is no scriptural basis for such an expression although it sounds good, but it is false. It is not only that quite often we do not base some of the catch phrases or sentences that are thrown around in the Scripture, but that is also true of what we practice. Some of our practices as Christians could not be found in the Scripture. I mean, there are many practices Christians get involved with that they think are Christian in nature but are not. The ones I have discoursed in the past are the Christmas and birthday celebrations. People defend these two as biblical but do not have a biblical warrant for them. In effect, they cannot cite a single passage where Jesus command us to celebrate His birthday as, for example, the command to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The implication is that believers who practice such things are in violation of the Scripture because they are going outside the Scripture for their practices of what they claim to be Christian despite Apostle Paul’s declaration that he did not go outside the Scripture in the practices he advocated in the church of Christ as implied in 1 Corinthians 4:6:
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
Anyway, I digressed to make the comments I have because I wanted to convey to you that authentic Christianity is based on the Scripture and that it is wrong to push anything and call it Christian if it cannot be shown as derived from the Scripture. Again, I am not merely concerned with practices but with teachings or pronouncements people make that are not rooted in the Scripture. The basis for this emphasis is the example of the Apostle Paul as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. He had thus far in his discourse in Romans conveyed that all humans are sinners. He could have simply stated that his discourse that has been guided by the Holy Spirit is true, and so part of the Scripture but that is not what he did. Instead, he, in effect, said something like: “do not take my word for it although I am inspired, but listen to already established God’s word, that is, OT Scripture says about my assertion.” It is for this reason that he quoted the Scripture. This he did in the first sentence of Romans 3:10 As it is written.
The word “written” is translated from a Greek verb (graphō) that means “to write.” However, the sentence it is written or its equivalent For it is written is a formula for quotation from the OT Scripture. The Lord Jesus used it to cite Scripture to Satan during His temptation as we read in Matthew 4:4:
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
He quoted exactly from Deuteronomy 8:3:
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.
Interestingly, Satan used the same formula in his quotation of Scripture in his temptation of Jesus Christ as he countered Jesus Christ by quoting the Scripture as we read in Luke 4:10–11:
10 For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; 11they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
Satan quoted exactly from Psalm 91:11–12:
11For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
The Jews who contended with the Lord Jesus used the formula as it is written in their quotation of the OT Scripture as we read in John 6:31:
Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
The Jews did not quote exactly any passage of the OT Scripture but they in a sense referenced the account given in Exodus 16:4:
Then the LORD said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions.
Apostle Peter in addressing the disciples regarding replacement of Judas Iscariot supported that move by citing Psalms using the formula we are considering, as we read in Acts 1:20:
“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’
The apostle pieced together two different psalms. The first quotation May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it is from Psalm 69:25:
May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents.
In this verse of Psalm 69, the psalmist desired the complete destruction of his enemies and their families so that there would be no inhabitants left to occupy their cities and homes so rendering them empty. However, the apostle applied what was aimed at all the enemies of the psalmist to one person, Judas Iscariot, viewed probably as enemy of Christ because he betrayed him. Anyway, the second quotation of Acts 1:20‘May another take his place of leadership’ is from Psalm 109:8:
May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.
Again, the psalm is concerned with the psalmist’s desire or prayer for the death of his enemy so that another person will take up the position the enemy occupies. One thing we learn from the quotation in Acts 1:20 is that although the apostle pieced together two different passages in Psalms, but the two passages have something in common, desire or petition for the death of an enemy. Peter’s approach lets us know that we could piece together various passages of the Scripture that are germane to our position in support of our arguments. The human author of Hebrews used the formula we are considering in quoting from the Scripture as he supported in a sense the incarnation of Jesus Christ who became our high priest, as we read in Hebrews 10:7:
Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.’”
The quotation is from Psalm 40:7–8:
7Then I said, “Here I am, I have come— it is written about me in the scroll. 8I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”
Comparison of the quotation in Hebrews 10:7 to the original passage reveals that there is a change in the order of the sentences. In the original, the sentence I have come, comes before the sentence it is written about me in the scroll but in the quotation the reverse was the case. Furthermore, the quotation left out the sentence I desire in the original and assimilated the rest of the verbal phrase to do your will, O my God to the sentence I have come leading to the reading I have come to do your will, O God. The implication is that the OT Scripture may be used in argument not necessarily citing every word in the text. In short, we may summarize a passage in the OT in support of an argument. That aside, in our passage of Romans 3:10, the word has the sense of “to be written,” that is, “to be set down in writing.” Hence, Apostle Paul quoted the OT Scripture beginning in Romans 3:10 to support his assertion regarding the universal human sinfulness.
The apostle’s quotation is given beginning with the sentence of Romans 3:10 There is no one righteous, not even one. The quotation of the Apostle that is given in Romans 3:10-18 consists of strings of Scripture passages in the OT as we will examine at the appropriate time. However, let us begin with the first quotation There is no one righteous, not even one. This quotation seemed to have come from the Septuagint of Ecclesiastes 7:20:
There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.
The reading we have in Romans 3:10 There is no one righteous, not even one is not the same thing as the reading in Ecclesiastes 7:20 There is not a righteous man on earth. Nonetheless, the quotation of the apostle is closest to this reading since there is no other OT passage that contains the wordings used in Romans 3:10. The explanation to this difference is either that the apostle had a version of the Septuagint that is not available to us or that he cited this passage in Ecclesiastes and modified it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to support the point he was supporting by quoting from the OT Scriptures. There are differences between what the apostle quoted and what is given in Ecclesiastes. First, the apostle introduced the word “one” (heis) that is a numerical term with the meaning “one.” However, there are several senses associated with the basic meaning. The word may mean “one” with focus on the quantitative aspect of person or thing. Thus, it may mean “one in contrast to many” as Apostle Paul used the word to indicate that one person, Adam, was responsible for entrance of sin into the world in Romans 5:12:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
The word may mean “one” with focus on uniformity or quality of a single entity and so in some passages may mean “one and the same” as it is used to describe the God that justifies both Jews and Gentiles by faith in Christ Jesus in Romans 3:30:
since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
The phrase only one God may be translated one and the same God. The Greek word may mean “one” in referring to an unspecified entity so may mean “someone” as it is used in the instruction regarding the practice of speaking in tongues in public worship as stated in 1 Corinthians 14:27:
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. [The word someone is literally one].
In our passage of Romans 3:10, the word means “single” so that the apostle meant “a single person.” Second, the apostle instead of the phrase on earth in Ecclesiastes 7:20 used the phrase not even that is translated from a Greek particle (oude) that may mean “and not” although in Romans 3:10, the word has the sense of “not even.”
All the same, the major point the apostle sought to support in his quotation is that all humans are sinful, which put in another way means that there is no righteous person on the planet of all that are born through the normal birth process that involves a man and a woman. The apostle’s quotation in Romans 3:10 reads There is no one righteous, not even one while Ecclesiastes 7:20 reads There is not a righteous man on earth.
The word “righteous” is translated from a Greek adjective (dikaios) that pertains to being in accordance with high standards of uprightness, so the word means “upright” as Apostle Paul used it to describe one of the virtues of an overseer of a local church in Titus 1:8:
Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.
The word may mean “innocent” as the word is used to describe Jesus Christ by the wife of Pilate as narrated in Matthew 27:19:
While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
The word may be used in rendering to people what is due them as it pertains to justice and so it may mean “right” as Apostle Paul used it to describe God’s judgment in 2 Thessalonians 1:5:
All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.
In our passage of Romans 3:10, the word has the sense of “righteous person,” that is, “a person characterized by righteous actions and morals” or “one whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God.”
In any case, the apostle’s first quotation of Romans 3:10 There is no one righteous, not even one supports his point that all humans are sinful without exception. We should qualify what the apostle meant by asserting There is no one righteous, not even one he meant all humans that are born the natural way of the relationship between a man and a woman. Although the apostle did not make this qualification but that is what he meant since Jesus Christ is a human being as well as God in one person, but He was not a sinner as the apostle also stated in his epistle to the Corinthians according to 2 Corinthians 5:21:
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
That aside, the apostle continued to support his assertion from the OT Scripture that we will consider in our next study. However, let me close with a reminder of a message of the section we are considering which is Humanity’s sinfulness is universal as attested by the Scripture and specifically supported by some functions of the law.
02/27/26