Chapter 2
The second
chapter of Romans is a dissertation on maladjustment to the justice of God,
especially to those who are self-righteous. The worst type of unbeliever
reversionist is the self-righteous type. The subject of the chapter is the
judgment function of the justice of God.
Outline
6. The judgment
function of the justice of God toward self-righteousness, verses 1-8.
7. The judgment
function of the justice of God toward evil, verse 9-16.
8. The judgment
function of the justice of God toward the Jews as a special case, verses 17-29.
There are four principles of divine judgment in this chapter. Some are
negative
because they are
not used by God and some are positive principles because they are used by God.
First, in Romans 2:2 there is the
principle of doctrine: “according to doctrine.” It is doctrine that is the
basis for either blessing or cursing toward any person in the human race. The
first blessing that comes to the human race is salvation, positive volition
toward gospel type doctrine. Negative volition is the basis of cursing. Once a
person is a believer his attitude toward doctrine then determines his maturity
or reversionism. His positive or negative attitude toward doctrine is the
basis, therefore, for blessing or cursing as long as he lives in this life.
Second, in Romans 2:6 there is the
principle of production. God never judges us according to our works. In other
words, doctrine and production are considered to be antithetical. We must
adjust to the justice of God by our attitude toward doctrine, positive or
negative. But we do not adjust to the justice of God through our works.
Anything we can do is not a part of the grace plan of God. According to works
is the standard for judging the self-righteous person, the person who always is
clinging to some system of works or good deeds whereby he is going to impress
God and receive blessing from God. These people are going to be cursed by God,
rather than blessed.
Third, in Romans 2:11 there is the
principle of personality. The justice of God is never impressed with a pleasing
personality. Personality is meaningless when it comes to relationship. Human
personality is not the means of adjustment to the justice of God.
Fourth, in Romans 2:16 there is the
principle of adjustment for the unbeliever. This is our initial adjustment to
the justice of God, and it is found in the phrase “according to my gospel.”
This adjustment is made through faith in Jesus Christ.
Two other principles should be
anticipated in this chapter. First of all, this chapter deals with the judgment
function of the justice of God against the unbeliever who is self-righteous.
All self-righteous types are evil. A second principle: divine justice must
express itself in judgment against the unbeliever who is maladjusted to the
justice of God. He is maladjusted generally through self-righteousness. This
self-righteousness can also be religiosity.
Apart from Israel and certain client
nations the ancients did not possess a clear-cut concept of morality. Remember
that the only concept of true morality until the Church Age began (it began at
the end of ancient history) was when God revealed morality before the Old
Testament canon, and the other source is the Old Testament scriptures. So God’s
direct revelation to people like Noah and Abraham is the clear-cut concept of
morality. The other clear-cut concept comes from the Old Testament scriptures,
especially the Mosaic law which is very beneficial in this particular area. So
remember that the Greeks, the Romans, the Assyrians before them, the Chaldeans,
the Persians, did not have clear-cut concepts of morality except as they came
into contact with Israel, or with divine revelation. Therefore justice was
considered to be the highest form of morality by the Romans, Greeks, Chaldeans,
the Medes and the Persians. Justice means giving everyone a fair shake before
the law, so there was a basic concept of morality related to justice but not
through personal function in relationship to people. Relationship to persons
and relationship to God is only defined by the Old Testament scriptures.
The Greek word dikaiosunh is one of the
most important words in Romans. The suffix sunh is an abstract concept and indicates a morality
related to justice. Dikaioj means justice
and righteousness, sunh means the abstract
thinking of justice and righteousness. It is the thinking of a judge. Dikaiosunh is what God as
judge thinks. The supreme court of heaven is made up of God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Spirit; and what they think is important. We must relate
to what they think; doctrine is the means by which we relate to what they think.
Dikaiosunh therefore
becomes the principle of objective thinking and judicial righteousness, or our
relationship with God. When used with the possessive genitive, as it is many
times in Romans (dikaiosunh
qeou) it means the justice of God, it means the thinking of the judge. The
relationship with God in time for the believer is based on the concept of dikaiosunh.
The Justice of God
1. The direct source of blessing to mankind is the justice of God.
2. The justice of God acts as a watch dog on the essence box.
3. Divine justice protects other divine attributes from compromise.
4. Therefore while all divine attributes are involved in man’s blessing
from God, only justice is the direct source of blessing.
5. Dikaiosunh
qeou is the key to the epistle to the Romans.
6. The love of God is the expression of divine motivation but the
justice of God is the direct source of either blessing or cursing.
7. While we are accustomed to associating love with sentiment, do not
associate the love of God with sentiment or emotion.
8. Do not count on God being emotional about you, count on something
that has more security. God cannot afford to be emotional about you because God
would
not be God if He were emotional. Therefore it becomes necessary to
understand that neither love nor sovereignty nor righteousness, nor other
attributes, have any direct bearing on your blessing, except justice.
Verse 1 – the presumption of the
self-righteous unbeliever, or the person who is maladjusted to the justice of
God at salvation, who decides to build up a system of righteousness to reach
God. “Therefore” is an inferential conjunction, dio, denoting that the inference is self-evident.
Translation: “Therefore” or “For this reason.” This is a conjunction and it
refers to the justice of God which judges heathenism or unbeliever
reversionism. However, the moral and self-righteous man often compares himself
to the man in chapter one—the immoral, heathenistic type—and says to himself,
“I don’t do those things.” Because he doesn’t do those things he rationalises
that he is righteous. He is self-righteous. He compares himself to the immoral
person instead of to the perfect divine standard. Self-righteousness is blind.
You cannot build your righteousness on someone else’s unrighteousness.
“thou art” is the present active
indicative of the verb e)imi. The present
tense is a static present for a condition perpetually existing in history.
There are always people who are judging other people. The active voice: the
self-righteous unbeliever produces the action of the verb. The indicative mood
is declarative for a dogmatic statement of fact.
“inexcusable” – the predicate
nominative singular from the compound noun a)napologhtoj [a =
negative; a)pologeomai = to defend
one’s self against charges in court] which says in effect, you have no defense, therefore without excuse—“Therefore
you keep on being without excuse.”
“O man” is an interjection w), plus the vocative of a)nqrwpoj, refers to all
people who gossip, malign and judge. Whenever you have an interjection with the
vocative you express an emotion. It is addressed to the self-righteous
person—any self-righteous person who assumes in arrogance to have arrived at
the point of human righteousness where he has the right or prerogative to make
pronouncements about others. Pride is the basic sin of the self-righteous
person.
“whosoever” – the nominative
singular from paj which is
actually an adjective meaning “all.” However it can be used as a substantive
and when it is it means “everyone” rather than “whosoever”; “thou art” is not
found in the original, it is simply inserted by the translator to smooth out
the English. It should be “everyone of you when you judge.”
“that judgest” is an articular
present active participle from the verb krinw, which means to judge. The definite article in the
nominative singular is used for a personal pronoun referring to the
self-righteous person who assumes the prerogative of judging others. The
present tense is a customary present, it denotes what habitually occurs when
arrogance combines with self-righteousness to judge others. The active voice:
the self-righteous person produces the action of the verb. The participle is
temporal and therefore we have a temporal clause: “everyone of you when you
judge.” The antithesis of love is judging and maligning. The word to judge here
means to malign, to slander, to use verbal sins in the direction of someone
else.
“for” – the explanatory conjunction;
“wherein” – e)n plus the
locative of the relative pronoun o(j, the object of
the preposition, should be translated “in which sphere.”
“thou judgest another” – present
active indicative of krinw, used to cover
all of the mental attitude sins which lead to gossip, maligning, judging
others. Hence, krinw while it is in
the original Greek primarily a legal word, used for both official and personal
judgment, when used with God as the subject it is official judgment. When used
with self-righteous persons as in this context it is personal judgment,
tantamount to maligning, to slandering, to gossiping. So with this is an
accusative singular definite article to denote a category, namely the judging
of the immoral man. Then the accusative singular from the adjective e(teroj, meaning other
of two or setting up a contrast between two human categories. The two human
categories are the self-righteous and the more obviously sinful. The present
tense of krinw is a descriptive
present, it describes what is now going on in the conflict between the
self-righteous person—believer or unbeliever—and the person he chooses to
judge. The active voice: the self-righteous category produces the action of the
verb. The declarative indicative is for the historical reality in every
generation.
Principle
1. The self-righteous legalist, Jew or Gentile, is always judging those
whose sins are more obvious.
2. However the moral or self-righteous type was born with the same
imputation of Adam’s sin, and possesses the same old sin nature, therefore the
same
spiritual death.
3. The moral man is not the obvious sinner like his counterpart, the
immoral man, because he hides his sins behind a façade of legalism and covers
them with
self-righteousness.
4. However, the moral self-righteous man is just as guilty before God
as the immoral man.
5. But the self-righteous moral man has great arrogance, great pride of
achievement, which expresses itself in judging, maligning, slandering,
gossiping about others.
6. The self-righteous man finds his security in constantly judging and
slandering others. His rationalisation in the soul, his hang-ups, leads him to
start maligning
and judging, and in this way he seems to build up a
false sense of security with regard to his own life and, above all, his
relationship to the Lord.
7. Judging others is not only a sin but it is a rationalisation in
which you build your righteousness on someone else’s unrighteousness.
8. The self-righteous man does not want to deal with the justice of
God. He makes favourable comparisons with the immoral man, he rationalises
himself into a
state of having security for
his arrogance by saying he is better than he.
9. From making the favourable comparisons of rationalisation in his
morality against someone else’s immorality he comes to the blasphemy of
judgment.
“thou condemnest thyself” – present
active indicative from the compound verb katakrinw [kata = down or
against; krinw = to judge]. It
means to judge down, to judge against, to judge in such a way that you condemn.
Both condemnation and execution are gathered up in this compound verb. The
present tense is a perfective present, it denotes the continuation of existing
results. Here is a fact which comes to be in the past but is emphasised as a
present reality. The active voice: the self-righteous legalist produces the
action of the verb by judging. The declarative indicative mood is for an
unqualified statement of fact. Sooner or later your life is going to be
cluttered up with gossip, slander, people who judge and malign. With this is an
accusative singular direct object from the reflexive pronoun seautou in the emphatic
position. When an action expressed by the verb is referred back to its own
subject the construction is called reflexive. So we translate this part of the
passage “you condemn yourself.”
Principle
1. The self-righteous judge is as sinful as the object of his
condemnation.
2. The moral man is just as sinful as the immoral man.
3. It becomes, then, a matter of category. One house has sand for dirt,
another has coal dust for dirt; both are dirty.
4. Only the justice of God can correctly evaluate the life of any
creature. Only the justice of God has the right to judge His creatures.
5. Jesus Christ is the supreme court judge in heaven. He is perfect;
only a perfect judge can produce perfect judgment. That eliminates the human
race.
6. The self-righteous man assumes that he is perfect, but his judgment
of others merely proves and demonstrates his imperfection, sinfulness, and
hypocrisy.
“for thou that judgest” –
postpositive conjunctive particle gar, used to give a
reason why the self-righteous person condemns himself when he judges others.
Again, the articular present active participle of krinw. The present tense is retroactive progressive
present, it denotes what has begun in the past and continues into the present
time. In other words, we are told that we will always have these people with
us. The active voice: the self-righteous category produces the action of the
verb—self-righteous hypocrisy. The participle is circumstantial. It should be
translated, “for you who keeps judging.”
“doest the same things” – present
active indicative from the verb prassw which means to
practice. The present tense is retroactive progressive present denoting what
has begun in the past and continues into the present time. They have done this
in the past and are still doing it. They are practising something. The active
voice: the self-righteous type produces the action. The declarative indicative
represents the verbal action from the standpoint of reality. Plus the
accusative neuter plural from the direct object of the intensive pronoun a)utoj. The definite
article is used to denote a previous reference—to the sins mentioned in Romans
1:29-31.
Translation: “Therefore, you are
without excuse, O man, everyone of you when you judge: for in which sphere you
keep judging the other category, you condemn yourself; for you who keep judging
practice the same things.”
Principle
1. The same concept is amplified in John 8:3-11. It is interesting that
self-righteous people often pick on helpless people.
2. The principle emerges: Imperfect people are not qualified to judge
other imperfect people.
3. There are two exceptions to this: a pastor teacher communicating
doctrine is the judge of the individual life of the royal priest in the sense
that he
communicates doctrine. When anyone gets out of line with regard to
intruding into the privacy and the rights of other members of the congregation
the pastor-teacher certainly has the right of judgment; anything in the laws of
establishment where authority exists. Parents have a right to judge their
children. Senior officers have a right to judge those under their command.
Officers in a company or business organization have the right to judge those
who work for them. The judge on the
bench has the right to function in the sphere of criminal law and justice.
4. Because sinful people are not qualified to judge sinful people
judging is a verbal sin.
5. Judging also reflects reversionism, especially self-righteous and
legalistic type reversionism.
6. Whether moral or immoral, believer or unbeliever, every member of
the human race possesses and old sin nature.
7. The self-righteous person is often confused by different manifestations
of personal sins, giving greater condemnation to some over others. The
self-righteous person generally does not know much about sin categorically. All
he knows is that there are certain temptations to which he would never
acquiesce, and there are certain things where he fails, but he always compares
in his rationalisation his strengths with someone else’s weaknesses.
8. Where one’s area of weakness is compatible with morality or human
standards of righteousness there is a temptation to judge those who have
different standards.
9. Therefore much of compatibility in life is a pseudo compatibility
because it is compatibility of old sin natures.
10. All personal sin originates from the same source, the old sin
nature. Environment and early influence develops a set of standards in the
human conscience which are used to judge others who do not comply with those
standards.
Self-righteousness
1. Self-righteousness
is a rationalisation constructed from comparing one’s strength with the
weaknesses of someone else. Or. It is developed in the
environment of
self-righteousness where false standards have been imposed.
2. Self-righteousness
is constructed on the sins of others who have a different area of weakness.
3.
The foundation for self-righteousness, then, is constructed from the
sands of
ignorance, rationalisation,
hypocrisy and fantasy.
4.
No one can build his righteousness on another person’s unrighteousness.
5. But self-righteousness is
always constructed on someone else’s righteousness.
6. Judging others is
the mechanics of building one’s righteousness at the expense of other
categories of sin.
7. Divine justice is
based on perfect standards of eternal, immutable, infinite divine
righteousness.
8. Therefore the
self-righteous presumption to judge others is blasphemy as well as evil.
Verse 2 – the judgment standard of
the justice of God. “But” is the conjunctive particle de functioning in a
postpositive system, and it is an adversative conjunction used to emphasises
the contrast between the presumptuous of the self-righteous in verse 1 and the
perfect judgment of the justice of God in this verse. It sets up a system of
connecting two contrasting clauses. The clause of the first verse describes
clearly presumptive self-righteousness of man who has the audacity and the
self-righteousness to put himself in place of God and start judging others.
Whereas in this second clause we see the one who is qualified, the one who is
perfect in His judgment.
“we are sure” – present active
indicative of the verb o)ida. It should be,
“But we have come to know.” The present tense is a perfective present, it
denotes the continuation of existing results. It emphasises the fact which has
come to be in the past but is emphasised as a present reality—what we have come
to know. The active voice: the mature believer produces the action of the verb.
The mature believers are represented by the apostle Paul—editorial “we.” Paul
is speaking of himself, he is a mature believer. The indicative mood is
declarative representing the verbal action from the viewpoint of reality.
“that the judgment of God” – the
conjunction o(ti after verbs of
perception denotes the content of perception. The nominative singular neuter
from the definite article used with an abstract noun, the use of the article
with the noun when it is desired to apply a sense of an abstract in something
special or some unusual way. Abstract nouns are ordinarily general in their
character and application, therefore they are indefinite. So to make an abstract
noun definite you put a definite article in front of it. Then we have the
nominative singular subject, also with the definite article, the noun krima which means a decision, a
decree, a judging, a judgment action, the function of a judge, or judicial
verdict. Usually the decision is unfavourable and therefore krima often means condemnation.
But here the translation, in view of the fact that it has a definite article
with it, taking it out of the abstract noun category and making it a little
more definite, will be “that the judicial verdict.” Then an ablative of source
of both the definite article and the proper noun qeoj. This time the definite article has a different
purpose. With qeoj it simply
indicates someone well-known to the reader—“the God.” The source of krima or the judicial verdict is
the justice of God. God is perfect, it is impossible for His judgments or
judicial verdicts to ever be wrong or unfair. By the same token it is
impossible for a self-righteous person to ever be fair or right in his
judgment, and therefore a self-righteous gossip is erroneous as well as
blasphemous.
“is” – present active indicative of e)imi. The present tense is a
static present, it represents a condition which is assumed as perpetually
existing. It is always true that the judgment of God is right. The active
voice: the function of the justice of God produces the action of the verb. The
indicative mood is declarative, a dogmatic, unqualified statement of fact. It
is a fact: the justice of God is perfect.
“according to truth” – according to
doctrine; “against them” – e)pi is the
preposition, plus the masculine accusative plural from the definite article,
used as a demonstrative pronoun to emphasise the category of self-righteous
types who judge others. This is correctly translated “against them.”
“which commit such things” – an
articular present active participle from the verb prassw which means to do, to accomplish, to practice. Here
it is translated “who practice.” The definite article is used as a relative pronoun.
The present tense is retroactive progressive present, denoting what has begun
in the past and continues into the present time. Self-righteous people start in
at a very early age practising things. The active voice: self-righteous types
produce the action of the verb. The participle with the definite article
becomes a relative clause.
“such things” – accusative neuter
plural direct object from the correlative adjective toioutoj, and it means “similar things.” In other words,
self-righteous people practices sin, you just don’t see them do it!
Translation: “For we have come to
know that the judicial verdict from the God is according to the truth against
them who practice similar things.”
Principle
1. The
self-righteous type has the tendency to commend his own brand of sin while
condemning the sins and weaknesses of others.
2. Self-righteousness
and legalism rationalise sins by comparing hidden sins with the obvious gross
sins of others. (Social ostracism is the basis for keeping a lot of people from
advancing. The basis for all of our advance is doctrine)
3. While the
self-righteous type sees himself favourably compared with others the justice of
God condemns him with the entire human race.
4. At the expense of
the immoral man especially the self-righteous type builds a system of human
righteousness with which he seeks to gain the approbation of God.
5. The
self-righteous is maladjusted to the justice of God.
6. God’s standard of
Bible doctrine condemns the self-righteous types, along with the immoral type
and all other sinners. Sin is sin, and God condemns sin.
7. Therefore, no one
is excluded from the condemnation of the justice of God.
8. Bible doctrine
teaches total depravity and the universality of sin.
9. Man is born
spiritually dead and functions in the realm of spiritual death by sinning.
10. All sin is
condemned by God. The justice of God never compromises with sin.
“According to the
truth”
1. Doctrine or truth is the thinking of God.
2. His knowledge is eternal, infinite,
absolute, and unimprovable.
3. Doctrine is a part of God’s knowledge. Man
learns the truth and mans speaks the truth, but God is the truth.
4. God does not hold doctrine as something
acquired or perceived, He is the truth, He is doctrine from all eternity past.
5. In God all truth in every form of knowledge
dwells in absoluteness.
6. Since God is perfect His judgments are
perfect. God’s judgments are perfect, demanding perfection.
7. Righteousness is the divine love for
holiness. Justice is divine hatred for sin.
8. Righteousness and justice combine to form
God’s perfect holiness.
9. Infinite holiness acting toward other beings
results in the function of the justice of God.
10. Holiness
demands holiness and righteousness demands righteousness, God cannot change.
11. So long as He
is what He is God must demand holiness and punish sin.
12. Because of
the justice of God His judgments are vindicating but not vindictive. With
unchangeable sin there is unchangeable judgment and condemnation.
Summary
1. God has absolute holiness from all eternity—righteousness
plus justice.
2. The moral
excellence of God is not attained but infinite, absolute and eternal.
3. God is mere absence of sin and evil. God is
sum total of perfection in all of His attributes.
4. His holiness is not maintained by His will
or His sovereignty, but it is His unchangeable, immutable self.
5. God is immutable because of His perfect
character. He can never at any time be better or worse than He was the day
before.
6. The being of God is unalterable, absolute
and totally consistent.
7. When infinite holiness acts toward man the
justice of God is involved.
8. His judgments are perfect and demand
perfection. His righteousness is perfect and therefore not only reject sin but
condemns and rejects sin.
9. God’s love for holiness is revealed by His
righteousness. God’s hatred of sin is revealed by His justice.
10. Holiness
demands holiness; righteousness demands righteousness. God’s nature cannot
change, He must demand holiness and He must punish sin.
11. Because the
justice of God judged our sins at the cross divine justice has found a way to
vindicate rather than condemn—not to condemn us but to bless us as
believers.
Conclusion
1. Judgment is
the prerogative of God.
2. Divine
judgment is from the source of the justice of God.
3. God has both
the character and the information on which to function as a judge.
4. The same
source of judgment (the justice of God) is the source of blessing to the
believer also because of the fact that the sins of the world were judged on the
cross.
5. Christ was
bearing our sins when the justice of God judged them—2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24.
6. Therefore the
justice of God is free to give us salvation when we believe in Christ.
Salvation instead of condemnation is the result of adjustment to the justice of
God.
Verse 3 – “And thinkest thou this” begins with the
postpositive conjunctive particle de used as a
transitional conjunction, plus the present middle indicative of the verb logizomai which means to
think, to consider, to ponder, to calculate, to evaluate, to estimate—all of
those can relate to a thinking person, but this same verb is also used for
non-thinking people trying to think, and so we call this “to presume, to infer,
to conclude.” “And do you infer.” The descriptive present tense is for what is
now going on in the minds of self-righteous types who have to judge others to
stay alive. Remember that self-righteousness cannot stay alive without sinning,
without judging, maligning, gossiping and slandering others. The middle voice
of the deponent verb means that the subject produces the action of the verb,
and the self-righteous type produces the action here. The indicative mood is
declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of reality. With
this is an accusative neuter singular direct object from the immediate
demonstrative pronoun o(utoj, used for what
is relatively near in their thinking. “Do you infer this” is the corrected
translation.
“O man” – the same interjection used for that slanderous,
self-righteous person of verse one. It is exactly the same form in the Greek.
The interjectory particle w) is used with the
vocative to express emotion—spiritual emotion, indignation against the evil of
self-righteousness. The vocative of the noun a)nqrwpoj refers to the self-righteous man of verse one who
presumes to assume the prerogative of God in judging others.
“that judgest them” – articular present active participle
from the verb krinw. The present
tense is retroactive progressive present, it denotes what was begun in the past
and continues into the present time. The self-righteous types, in order to
maintain their self-righteousness, must find those they consider inferior to
them and judge them. The active voice: the self-righteous individual produces
the action of the verb—judging. The participle is temporal. There is also an
accusative plural definite article, direct object of the participle, and it is
used as a demonstrative pronoun for the victims of the self-righteous,
slanderous judge—“who judge those.”
“which do such things” – present active participle from
the verb prassw. The present
tense is a historical present, it views the past sins of heathenism with the
vividness of a present occurrence. The active voice: the heathenism in Romans
one produces the action of the verb. The participle with the definite article
is used as a relative clause. The participle has a direct object, the
accusative plural from the correlative adjective toioutoj, used as a substantive and meaning “similar things
like that.”
“and doest the same” – present active participle after
the connective kai from the verb poiew which is contrasted to prassw, and it means to
do, to make, to manufacture, to produce, to perform; here it means to be guilty
or to commit. The present tense is a customary present, it denotes what
habitually occurs in the human race, namely the self-righteous person judging,
maligning and slandering others is guilty of the same sins. The active voice:
the self-righteous type commits the sin and is just as guilty before the justice
of God. The participle is circumstantial. The object is the accusative neuter
plural from the intensive pronoun a)utoj—“the same
things.”
Summary
1. Rationalism
leads to hypocrisy.
2. The
self-righteous person excuses or minimises his own sins and failures by judging
the more obvious sins of heathenism or the immoral man.
3. The overt sins
of the immoral man are quite obvious while the mental sins and the verbal sins
of the self-righteous are hidden behind a façade of legalism and
religionism.
4. Note the
contrast between the two verbs, prassw and poiew. Prassw is for overt and
obvious sins in contrast to poiew for hidden
sins—mental attitude sins, sneaky sins, sins of the tongue, judging,
slandering, gossiping. An interesting twist: Self-righteous people, in building
up their self-righteousness, always do it with mental sins and verbal sins. But
sooner or later those sins make them vulnerable to the whole realm of sin.
5. Under the
justice of God one type of sin is just as much condemned as another.
6. The sins of
the self-righteous person are not as obvious but just as sinful.
7. Therefore the
moral and self-righteous person is no more justified than the immoral and
unrighteous person. In other words, man’s respectability does not
minimise man’s sins.
8. The verb prassw is used for the
immoral man whose sins are obvious (e.g Matthew 5:27 for committing adultery),
whereas the verb poiew is used for
self-righteous
types whose sins are more hidden (Matthew 5:28 for the man who thinks adultery)
and judges the adulterer on the other hand.
9. The
self-righteous man judges the immoral man and in this way rationalises away his
own sins.
10. The verb prassw was first used
in Romans 1:32 for the obvious sins of the reversionistic unbeliever, heathen,
or immoral man. Now poiew is used for the
self-righteous type who adds sin to sin by judging, gossiping, maligning,
slandering, and when he gets a chance he sneaks out and sins overtly also. The
self-righteous man is prone, then, to mental sinning which compounds and
intensifies both sin and guilt before the justice of God.
“that thou shalt escape” – the conjunction o(ti introducing an objective
clause after verbs of thinking, presuming, or erroneous presumption. Plus the
future middle indicative of the verb e)kfeugw [e)k = out; feugw = escape out], it means to
avoid or to escape. The future tense is a predicative future for an event
expected to be avoided in future time. This is also punctiliar action in future
time. The self-righteous person assumes that because he is self-righteous he is
free to assume the prerogative of God and judge others. The more he judges
others the more he is certain he will not be judged himself by God. The middle
voice: the subject or the agent who is the self-righteous type acts with a view
toward participating in the results of the action. This is a potential
indicative.
“the judgement of God?” – the nominative singular subject
from krima with the
definite article. The noun means decision, decree, judgment, judgment action,
the function of a judge, or judicial verdict. Plus the ablative of source of
the definite article and the proper noun qeoj—“the judicial verdict from the God.”
Translation: “And do you presume this, O Man, who judges
those who practice similar things, and are guilty of the same things, that you
will escape the judicial verdict from the God?”
Summary
1. The holiness
of God, divine righteousness and justice, is not a respecter of persons.
2. The imputation
of Adam’s sin plus physical birth with the old sin nature placed man at birth
under the judicial condemnation of God.
3. Sin is the
manifestation of the old sin nature and the status of spiritual death.
4. All have
sinned, all are guilty before the justice of God.
5. While
manifestations of the old sin nature are different the source is always the
same. The fact that we sin personally merely proves that we are spiritually
dead and that we have an old sin nature which is the source of spiritual death,
and that we’ve been spiritually dead since birth.
6. Both the moral
and the immoral, the religious and the non-religious, are spiritually dead.
Self-righteousness has no advantage over non-righteousness before
the supreme court of heaven.
7. You cannot
build your righteousness on someone else’s unrighteousness. You can only build
your righteousness on instant adjustment to the justice of God at salvation.
8. The judgment
of self-righteous types is not valid and is thrown out of court by the justice
of God, with attached penalties.
Verse 4 – the negative volition of self-righteousness
portrayed, or the principle of maladjustment to the justice of God. “Or
despisest thou” begins with a disjunctive particle, h), which separates objects which are mutually
exclusive. Here we have a separation between the judgment of God in the
previous verse and blessing from the justice of God mentioned in this verse. I
this verse we have blessing from the justice of God. In verse 3 we have
condemnation from the justice of God. With this disjunctive particle is the present
active indicative from the compound verb katafronew [kata = down; fronew = to think]
which means to think down, to despise, to scorn, to treat with contempt, to
care nothing for, to disregard, to think lightly, to have wrong ideas about
someone of something. Several meanings are pertinent here. The verb actually
connotes disparagement, and to disparage means to lower in rank or estimation
by word or action. It means to speak slightingly of; it means diminuation of
esteem, depreciation, detraction. “Or do you disparage?” – meaning to treat
with contempt, to care nothing for. The present tense is retroactive
progressive present, it denotes what has begun in the past at the point of
God-consciousness and continues into the present, the point of gospel hearing.
The active voice: the self-righteous person produces the action of the verb,
namely disparagement, diminuation, detraction, etc. The indicative mood is the
interrogative indicative in which the viewpoint of reality is implied in a fact
enquired about. The indicative is used in asking a question.
“the riches” is an objective genitive singular from ploutoj. The route of
this word in the Sanskrit, pel, means
to flow, to fill, or to be full. From this comes ploutoj, used here and elsewhere for all the blessings
which come to us from the justice of God. The adjective plousioj means wealthy and rich. The verbs are plutew, which means to
become rich, and plutizw which means to
make rich.
This is salvation maladjustment of the unbeliever
reversionist described in principle. He disparages or treats with contempt the wonderful blessings which come to him at
the point of salvation. The pertinent blessings include 36 different items.
“of his goodness” – the descriptive genitive singular
from the noun xrhstothj which connotes
God’s gracious attitude and acts toward sinners. God’s gracious attitude is
based on His justice. The same gracious attitude that God has toward one member
of the human race He has toward all members of the human race. We have a good
idea of that from the doctrine of unlimited atonement applied. Xrhstothj expresses
comprehensive fullness of eternal salvation, so it is a common equivalent to xarij; in other words, for grace.
“Or do you disparage the riches of his kindness?” Kindness is a human
characteristic ascribed to God so that we can understand the divine attitude at
salvation. The word “kindness” can also mean generosity. It is manifest in the
doctrine of propitiation whereby the justice of God is free to save anyone who
believes in Jesus Christ. There is also a possessive genitive singular from the
intensive pronoun a)utoj, employed as a possessive pronoun, so we translate “of
his gracious generosity” or “of his kindness.”
“and forbearance” – a descriptive genitive singular from a)noxh. While the
anthropopathism “kindness” is easy to understand in human frame of reference
related to the essence of God, anoxh, meaning holding
back, delay or forbearance is not as easy until we use something that
represents an anthropopathism; and the word is “clemency.” Clemency means a
disposition, to be merciful, an act of compassion or mercy. Clemency is related
to divine justice and propitiation. It is seen in the restraint of divine
judgment allowing everyone an opportunity of salvation adjustment to the
justice of God. Clemency is directed toward the human race in the continuation
of history. The fact that many people reject Christ as saviour does not
diminish or destroy the opportunity of others. That is clemency, since Christ
died for all. God does not destroy the entire human race because some members
of the human race reject Christ, and therefore are maladjusted. The existence
of the unbeliever reversionist or heathenism in history does not infer total
destruction of the human race. That’s clemency. History moves on in spite of
negative volition at God-conscious and at gospel hearing, and in spite of
heathenistic degeneracy and maximum evil. That is clemency.
“and longsuffering” – a descriptive genitive singular
from makroqumia which means patience
toward others. The key to makroqumia is found in the
works of Strabo. He wrote a book called “Geographica” where the word is used
for a desperate patience in the extreme emergency of a siege. No stone was left
unturned to avoid the inevitable end of the siege—violence, slavery and
destruction. The tremendous way in which they staved off destruction and held
of the enemy is called makroqumia. It means to use
every possible bit of ingenuity, every scheme, plan, tactic that will defeat
the enemy. This helps us to understand the anthropopathism. It ascribes to God
a desperate patience to stave off judging us. He uses every plan, apart from
compromising His integrity, to stave off judgment.
“not knowing that” – present active participle of a)gnoew [a = negative; gnoew (ginwskw) = not to know,
to be ignorant], translated “being ignorant” or “not knowing.” The present
tense is a customary present, it denotes what habitually occurs in unbeliever
reversionism. The active voice: the self-righteous reversionist produces the
action of the verb. Plus the conjunction o(ti, used after verbs of perception or non-perception,
to show the non-perception in this case.
“the goodness of God” – nominative neuter singular from
the definite article to denote a previous reference. It merely indicates that
we have had xrhstothj in this verse
before. Then we have the nominative neuter singular of xrhstothj. Here the
adjective is used as a substantive and it refers again to the kindness of God,
the gracious act of God in not destroying the sinner without using every
possibility to bless the sinner through justice. Plus the possessive genitive
of qeoj because this
kindness as an anthropopathism is ascribed to God. The definite article is used
with the proper name of God to make it clear that God is well known to us as
those studying the passage.
“leadeth thee” – present active indicative from the verb a)gw, which means to lead, to
bring, to take along. Here it means “brings you.” This is a tendencial present
tense used as an action which is not taking place but represents the idea of
that which is intended. God intends to save everyone, but it doesn’t always
work that way because people have free will and they can say no to the justice
of God, they can reject possessing God’s righteousness which God loves with a
perfect love. So that which tends toward reality is the connotation of the
tendencial present. Here the grace or kindness of God having the tendency or
the intent to bring the unbeliever to instant salvation adjustment to the
justice of God is the picture. This is what God intends, but this is not what
is happening in context. The active voice: the kindness of God produces the
action of the verb in principle but not in reality. The indicative mood is the
potential indicative, depending on the volition of the individual at the point
of gospel hearing or any time, as long as he is still alive. There is also the
accusative singular direct object from the personal pronoun su. With this is a
prepositional phrase.
“to repentance” – e)ij plus the accusative singular from metanoia. It means a
complete change of mind, also conversion. It emphasises salvation from the
standpoint of volition.
Translation: “Or do you disparage the riches of his
gracious generosity and clemency and patience; not knowing that the kindness of
the God brings you to conversion.”
Verse 5 – “But after they hardness and impenitent heart.”
There are at least two major categories of doctrine here to consider. This
begins with a postpositive conjunctive particle de, used to set up a contrast between the grace of God
in the previous verse and the reversionistic status of the unbeliever in this
verse. In the first 16 verses of this chapter it is a Gentile in this status
and in the rest of the passage it is a Jew. The Jew and the Gentile must be
covered separately because the Gentile does this minus the law; the Jew does
this with the law. But here we have a person who has rejected e)pignwsij gospel and is
now asking God to accept his own righteousness.
“after thy hardness” – kata plus the accusative of sklhrothj which actually means stubbornness or hardness and
it connotes scar tissue. When you are stubborn for a long time you develop a
callous, but this is not a callous on the epidermis, it is in a more critical
place in the right lobe of the soul,[1]
and.[2]
This should be translated so far, “But according to your hardness,
stubbornness, hardness of heart, scar tissue of the soul.”
“and impenitent heart” – the connective kai continues the prepositional
phrase. It is not a conjunction connecting clauses here, it merely it’s merely
a connection for continuation of a prepositional phrase. In other words,
“impenitent heart” also goes with kata. The accusative
singular from the adjective a)metanohtoj [metanoia = repentance or
change of mind; a = negative],
unrepentance or non-repentance. With it is the accusative singular from the
noun kardia, translated
“heart.” So, “according to your hardness and unrepentant heart.” The words for
“hardness and unrepentant heart” means that scar tissue of the soul plus
non-repentance is maximum maladjustment to the justice of God. The unrepentant
status of scar tissue accumulates self-righteousness as a part of the function
of evil. The accumulation of self-righteousness is a deposit for future
judgment and punitive action from the justice of God.[3]
The word “heart” in the Bible always refers to the anatomy of the soul, not the
body.
“treasurest up” – present active indicative from the verb
qhsaurizw which means to
collect and store wealth, to save up, to reserve, to accumulate into hords.
Here it means to store up and accumulate. The present tense is a retroactive
progressive present denoting something begun in the past and continuing into
the present time. This began at the time that they became maladjusted to the
justice of God at the point of salvation, and the hardness of heart and
resultant scar tissue accumulated in unbeliever reversionism. The active voice:
the self-righteous Gentile unbeliever produces the action of the verb. The indicative
mood is declarative, it views the action of the verb from the standpoint of
reality.
“for yourself” – a reflexive pronoun in the dative
masculine singular, it is the indirect object from seautou; “wrath” – the accusative singular direct object
from o)rgh, wrath or anger.
This is an anthropopathism for divine judgment against reversionism. The
absence of the definite article calls attention to the high quality of this
judgment. The one who is judging is perfect; the condemnation is perfect.
“against the day of wrath” – the preposition e)n plus the locative of h(mera, “on the day,”
plus the descriptive genitive of o)rgh: “on the day of
wrath.” The day of wrath is the last judgment, the great white throne which is
the final judgment from the justice of God to those maladjusted at the point of
salvation.
“and revelation” – the ascensive kai with the appositional
genitive of a noun which also means disclosure, a)pokaluyij, referring to the disclosure, the shock, the
trauma that comes to the unbeliever when he stands before the Lord Jesus Christ
at the great white throne and endures the shock of seeing his own
self-righteousness totally set aside. He discovers that the divine attitude
toward his accumulation of righteousness to his own attitude are as far apart
as any two attitudes could be. So even the disclosure of …
“the righteous
judgment of God” – descriptive genitive of dikaiokrisia [krisij = judgment’ dikaioj = righteous or
just], translated “just judgment.” The absence of the definite article emphasises
the qualitative aspect of this noun. There is also an ablative of source from Qeoj, meaning “from God.” The
definite article with the noun indicates that God is well known to the readers.
Principle
1. It is
impossible for the judicial verdict from the justice of God to be unfair. The
judicial verdict here is eternity in the lake of fire without recourse—alive,
conscious, in pain forever and ever. This judicial verdict is not unfair.
2. Unfairness is
incompatible with perfect divine essence.
3. Since the
self-righteous type prefers to stand on the accumulation of his human good
deeds, these deeds will be used to indict him at the last judgment.
4. No sins can be
mentioned at the last judgment since Christ has already been judged for those
sins at the time of the cross.
5. Only human
good will be the basis for divine judgment of the unbeliever—Revelation
20:12-15.[4]
6. Human good was
not judged at the cross.
7. The
self-righteous unbeliever stores up human good, hoarding it for his defense at
the last judgment. But no matter how much human good he has by way of
accumulation or hoarding it is never enough.
Translation: “Because of your hardness and unrepentant
heart, you store up and accumulate for yourself wrath against the day of wrath,
even disclosure of just judgment from the God.”
Verse 6 – “Who” is the relative pronoun o(j referring to the presiding
judge of the supreme court of heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the
unbeliever at the last judgment, John 5:22 cf. Revelation 20:12. This verse is
a quotation from Psalm 62:12; Proverbs 24:12.
“will render” – future active indicative from the verb a)podidomi. It means to pay
back, to return, to recompense, hence to repay in the form of reward of
punishment in this passage. The verb connotes divine judgment on the unbeliever
at the great white throne. The future tense is a predictive future denoting
something which will occur at a future time. The active voice: Jesus Christ is
the subject producing the action of the verb—judging the unbeliever. The
indicative mood is declarative for historical reality of the last judgment.
“to every man” – dative singular indirect object as well
as dative of advantage from the adjective e(kastoj, used here as a substantive and it means “to each
one.” It is used to indicate a specific category: unbeliever type. This is
dative of disadvantage, it is a great disadvantage to be an unbeliever. The
adjective used as the substantive refers in this context to a specific type of
unbeliever—self-righteous types who accumulate from motivation of arrogance a
tremendous number of good deeds and are very confident of their
self-righteousness.
“according to his deeds” – the preposition kata plus the accusative plural
of e)rgon meaning works or
deeds, plus the possessive genitive singular from the intensive pronoun a)utoj referring to
each individual. All of his deeds are remembered by God. All of them are
recorded in the book of good deeds, all of them are mentioned at the last
judgment, examined thoroughly, and they will still add up to minus
righteousness. Therefore righteousness tells justice what to do—condemn to the
lake of fire forever all of the accumulated human good.
Translation: “[Jesus Christ] who will render judgment to
each one according to his works.”
Note that sins are not mentioned in any of the passages,
including this one, regarding the last judgment. All sins were judged at the
cross—doctrine of unlimited atonement.
Verse 7 – the alternative to judgment. “To them” – toij men. Toij is a dative plural
indirect object from the definite article used as a demonstrative pronoun to
emphasise those who adjust to the justice of God at salvation through faith in
Jesus Christ, but to emphasise them through principle, not mechanics. The
dative of indirect object indicates the one in whose interest salvation is
provided, i.e. the entire world. So this is tantamount, then, to a dative of
advantage since it is to the advantage of every person in the human race to
have their sins judged by the justice of God at the cross, and also to be
positive at the point of God-consciousness and again at gospel hearing. From
the standpoint of principle, then (not mechanics), we have adjustment to the
justice of God in this passage. Such persons have previously been positive at
the point of God-consciousness and therefore this opportunity has been
afforded. The second word, men, is the
affirmative particle which introduces a concessive clause to be followed by
another concessive clause. This is the correlative use of this particle in
contrast to its use in an anacoluthon where a contrast can be supplied from the
context, and therefore it can be omitted as obvious. We translate toij men, “To those on
the one hand.” “Those” simply refers to those who made the positive adjustment
to the justice of God instantly at salvation.
From this point on there is a change in the word order in
the Greek. The words have been juggled in the KJV. The change in the word order
is due to the fact that the dative plural definite article goes with the
participle, and therefore we have an articular participle, the word “seek.” It
is the articular present active participle from the verb zetew. Zetew means to seek,
to look for, to search for, as in Acts 17:27, and therefore the word is used
for positive volition at God-consciousness. Actually, when you discover there
is a God through the function of the soul (primarily the right lobe of the
soul) then, if you are positive at God-consciousness, there is a seeking for
God, a thinking about God, a looking into the sky and wondering about God, etc.
It is positive volition at God-consciousness. The verb zetew connotes what one desires
somehow to bring into relationship with himself—you think about God, you want
to know about God, you want to have a relationship with God. The word also
means to obtain without knowing where something could be found. God-consciousness,
then, is the subject of Paul’s message to the Athenians on Mars Hill. Paul’s
message was given to those who had reached God-consciousness, but they needed
gospel hearing.
Acts 17:27 – “That they should seek the God.” The purpose
of establishment (verse 26) is to give people the opportunity of seeking God.
Here we have the present active infinitive of zetew. The present tense is an iterative present
describing what recurs at successive intervals, namely positive volition at the
point of God-consciousness. The active voice: the unbeliever of the human race
at God-consciousness produces the action of the verb. Positive volition is
expressed in terms of seeking. The infinitive is the infinitive of conceived
result, assumed as a consequence of positive volition at God-consciousness.
“if perhaps they might grope for him, and find him” –
seek and find is the issue. Seek = +V at God-consciousness; find = +V
at gospel hearing. The word for “find” is the aorist active optative of e(uriskw which means to
discover or to recognise. The aorist tense is a constative aorist, it gathers
into one entirety the function of common grace, the ministry of God the Holy
Spirit in perception of the gospel. The active voice: positive volition at
God-consciousness produces the action of the verb—gospel hearing. The optative
mood is a mood of strong contingency, strong possibility. It contains no
definite anticipation of realisation but merely presents the action as
conceivable, which it is, therefore some are positive and some are not. It
should read, therefore, “That they should seek the God, if perhaps they might
grobe for him, and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.”
Acts 17:30 – “Therefore having overlooked the times of
ignorance [between God-consciousness and gospel hearing]”—there is a period
after a person becomes God-conscious where they are ignorant of God—“the God is
now communicating to men that all everywhere should change their mind.” He
didn’t say “believe,” he said change their mind or repent, and the reason he
said repent is because he was dealing with intellectual people at the point of
God-consciousness and he knew that they had to change their minds about the
concepts of God. Their concepts of God were taken from their art forms, their
statuaries; so they had to change. Later on they did believe.
“all everywhere should repent” – present active
infinitive of metanoew [meta = to change; noew = to think]. The present
tense is an aoristic present for punctiliar action in present time. He is
challenging them now while he is standing on Mars Hill and looking at this
great crowd. It takes just a second to be saved. The active voice: the human being
at God-consciousness and gospel hearing produces the action of the verb. The
infinitive is intended result, when the result is indicated as fulfilling a
deliberate aim or purpose. It is a blending of purpose and result.
Acts 17:31 – “Because he has set a day in which he will
judge the inhabitants of the world in dikaiosunh through a noble man [Jesus Christ] whom he
[God the Father] has appointed; having offered faith to all when he raised him
from the dead.” Paul mentioned something that was totally foreign to their
thinking. Everything he has said up to dikaiosunh they understand, and they can understand
faith; but what they could never understand was a literal, physical, bodily
resurrection. In Greek thought there was no such thing.
Rom. 2:7 – “To those on the one hand who search for.”
This is a customary present tense of zetew, it denotes what
habitually occurs with those who are positive at the point of
God-consciousness. If you are positive at the point of God-consciousness you
are going to be searching until you find. The active voice: homo sapien who is
positive at God-consciousness produces the action of the verb. This is a telic
participle denoting the purpose of those who are positive at God-consciousness.
“eternal life” – accusative singular direct object zwhn a)iwnion, and it is
literally “life age-abiding,” but it is a Greek idiom for eternal life.
At this point we have to insert an entire phrase because
after toij men, which is the
beginning of this sentence, there is the phrase kaq’ u(pomhn e)rgou a)gaqou.
This
is mistranslated “by patient continuance in well doing” in the AV. It actually
begins with the prepositional phrase kata plus the
accusative of u(pomonh which means
patience, endurance, fortitude, perseverance, patient expectation. But it also means
expectation, and that is the way it is translated here. Kata plus the accusative can
also be translated “on the basis of.” So literally, “on the basis of
expectation.” Next is a descriptive genitive singular from the adjective a)gaqoj which means good
of intrinsic value. Then the noun which goes with the descriptive genitive is e)rgon in the singular.
Translation: “To those on the one hand who [when you take an articular
participle and translate it into a relative clause the definite article acts
also as a relative pronoun] on the basis of expectation [on the way from
God-consciousness to gospel hearing they are expecting something] of a good
work are seeking eternal life.”
Why have “on the one hand”? Because coming up is another
group who are negative. What is “a good work”? It is descriptive genitive
singular in contrast to the good works that are going to be judged at the last
judgment. At the last judgment the unbeliever is going to be judged for his
works. But here is a work [singular] in contrast to works [plural]. The good
work: the sins of the world were poured out upon Jesus Christ on the cross and
judged. That is “a good work,” that is intrinsic value. What Christ did on the
cross is of intrinsic value because the justice of God judged our sins when
Christ was bearing them.
Principle
1. In this phase
of the angelic conflict human volition is tested at two points:
God-consciousness and gospel hearing.
2. At
God-consciousness man becomes aware of the existence and the power of God
through the function of his own mentality and human perspicacity.
3. At gospel
hearing man understands
e)pignwsij gospel through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.
4. According to
Romans 1:20,21 man has the ability to reach God-consciousness through his own
mentality.
5. There are two
exceptions: morons and those who die before reaching accountability. The
exceptions are always automatically saved. 2 Samuel 12:23.
6. When a member
of the human race arrives at God-consciousness he is accountable to the justice
of God.
7. The age of
accountability varies with culture, language, historical circumstance,
environment, and civilisation or lack of it.
8. If any member
of the human race, regardless of geographical isolation or linguistic barrier,
desires relationship with God after reaching God-consciousness then God will
provide necessary gospel information by which that person can make instant
adjustment to the justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ—Jeremiah 23:13;
John 7:17; Acts 17:27.
9. So the
expectation of a good work is the anticipation of gospel information or
communication of the work of Christ on the cross by which a further decision is
made—faith in
Christ.
The rest of this verse deals with the results of positive
volition. There are three: a) Relationship with God—“glory,” the accusative
singular of doca.
“Glory”: This is
an adverbial accusative of measure. The adverbial accusative qualifies the verb
in a direct way. In the Greek the adverbial accusative of measure qualifies the
verb indirectly. The direct object qualifies the verb directly. Sometimes the
accusative is used to indicate a point of time similar to the locative, but
with a sense of duration or extension. We need a point of time because we are
talking about gospel hearing, and before that God-consciousness. When the
accusative is used to indicate a point of time it is a part of the continuous
period implied in the context. Hence, the accusative of the extent of time is
also involved with the adverbial accusative of measure. “Glory” [doca], which is now established
as an adverbial accusative of measure plus the accusative of the extent of
time, refers to the essence of God, the sum total of divine attributes.
Positive volition at gospel hearing results in an eternal relationship with the
essence of God. Therefore, adjustment to the justice of God at salvation
results in eternal relationship with God, the essence or glory of God. One of
the attributes of God’s essence is justice, to which the believer must adjust
after salvation through the rebound technique and the daily function of GAP.
Maturity adjustment to the justice of God means glorifying God or sharing
blessing from the glory of God, but we receive at the moment of salvation
glory, i.e. a relationship with God. But glorifying God is the difference
between salvation adjustment to the justice of God and maturity adjustment to
the justice of God.
b) Something of value—“honour” or “value,” timh. It is in the accusative of
measure or extent of time. In the 9th century BC timh meant wealth, but over the
period of 400 years, down to Classical Greek, timh detached itself from possession and became an
abstract noun with the concept of honour. There is something much more valuable
than possessions and that is to have honour, integrity. The word connotes both
honour and price and therefore comes to mean something of value. Salvation is
not only glory but it is something of value, something which is precious beyond
description.
c) Guarantee of ultimate sanctification—adverbial
accusative of measure or the accusative of the extent of time from a)fqartia which means
“incorruptibility” or “immortality,” a technical word for the future
resurrection body of the believer, minus the old sin nature, minus human good;
the same concept as 1 Corinthians 15:53-56.
Translation: “To those on the one hand who on the basis
of expectation of a good work are seeking eternal life, there is glory, honour
[something of value], immortality [resurrection body].”
What the verse is
teaching
1. This verse
describes salvation adjustment to the justice of God in terms of attractiveness
to the self-righteous type, the things that appeal to the self-
righteous—glory and honour.
2. Instant
adjustment through faith in Christ is the only alternative to the last
judgment.
3. The last
judgment, however, is only for those who are maladjusted to the justice of God
at salvation.
4. Therefore
salvation is the only way to avoid the last judgment.
Verse 8 – the certainty of judgment of self-righteous
unbelievers. “But unto them” – toij
de.
This includes the dative plural indirect object from the definite article used
as a demonstrative pronoun to emphasise those unbelievers who are maladjusted
to the justice of God through negative volition at the point of gospel hearing.
This is also, then, a dative of disadvantage. It is to the disadvantage of any
member of the human race to be negative toward the gospel. There is also the
correlative particle de used to complete
the second concessive clause and to show a contrast between them. The particle de is used also as an
adversative conjunction setting up a contrast between those who are positive at
gospel hearing and God-consciousness and those who are not. “But to those on
the other hand” is the way this is translated.
“that are contentious” – the preposition e)k plus the adjective in the
ablative singular, e)riqeia. E)riqeia is derived from
the verb e)riquw meaning to work
as a day labourer. It also connotes a self-seeking pursuit of political office
by unfair means. And there is another meaning: to have the mental attitude of a
prostitute trying to entice a customer. It all adds up to the attitude of self-seeking,
an arrogant attitude preying on the weaknesses of someone else. It is used for
those who are active in their own interest through arrogance, seeking their own
gain and advantage. Finally, this word came to mean an aristocratic scorn for
those who make an honest living, and therefore an arrogant, distorted mental
attitude. We could translate this, “from arrogant scorn.” It could also be
translated, “from selfish ambition.” The preposition e)k plus the ablative denotes
origin, cause, or reason. The adjective is actually an adjective for inordinate
ambition. Translation: “For those on the other hand who for inordinate
ambition.” Self-righteous reversionism is motivated and stimulated by
inordinate ambition.
“and” is not quite correct here. This is the adjunctive
use of kai and should be
translated “also”; “do not obey” – the present active indicative of a)peiqew means to
disbelieve or disobey. This is a perfective present tense, it denotes the
continuation of existing results but emphasises the present status quo of those
existing results. It refers to a fact which has come to be in the past but is
emphasised as a present reality. The fact which has come to be in the past is
negative volition at God-consciousness, but later on negative volition at
gospel hearing. Those involved in this verse—“on the other hand”—are those who
have e)pignwsij gospel and have
said no. The active voice: the unbeliever reversionist produces the action of
the verb at the point of gospel hearing. This is a declarative indicative mood
which views the verbal action from the viewpoint of its reality.
“the truth” – the dative singular indirect object from a)lhqeia, which means
truth in many forms; here it is referring to the truth which is in e)pignwsij gospel. This is
also a dative of reference—“they also disobeyed with reference to the truth,”
or “they refused to believe/obey the truth.”
“but” – the adversative conjunction de, emphasising the
contrast between negative volition toward the gospel and positive volition
toward evil. Once you go negative toward e)pignwsij gospel that opens up mataiothj, and now it is
as positive toward evil as it was negative toward the gospel.
“obeyed” – dative plural present middle participle of peiqw. The retroactive
progressive present denotes what has begun in the past and continues into the
present time. In other words, they disobey the gospel but they continue to obey
something, and when you are negative toward the absolute truth you are positive
toward the Satanic policy, false doctrine, simply called evil. The middle voice
is an indirect middle emphasising the agent, the reversionistic unbeliever, producing
the action of the verb rather than participating in the action.
“but obey unrighteousness” – dative of disadvantage from a)dikia, a legal term
which is the antithesis of dikaiosunh. For example in
Romans 3:5 a)dikia is an antonym to
dikaiosunh; in Romans 9:14 a)dikia is legal
injustice or partiality in judgment. As seen from this passage a)dikia is the
antithesis of a)lhqeia. So we know that
there are two ways in which a)dikia is used in
Romans. It is used as an antonym to the truth of the gospel, it is what people
believe and accept as a result of rejecting the gospel. This is why people
change in their thinking after they have a thorough cognisance of e)pignwsij gospel. They
have accepted a new system of doctrine as their frame of reference, and the
system of doctrine is evil—Satanic policy. So a)dikia merely summarises a new system instead of an
integrity system. A)dikia is maladjustment
to the justice of God; dikaiosunh is adjustment to
the justice of God.
“indignation and wrath” – the predicate nominative o)rgh, a post-Homeric noun. It is
used in the Attic Greek to connote thrusting and upsurging in nature, for the
impulsive state of human disposition. It was used of the sea which is quiet one
moment and very stormy the next moment. In the Attic Greek is used by
Esculus and Sophocles o)rgh was used as a tragic flaw.
And this tragic flaw was not blind anger but described as “demonic excess of
will in the nature of the tragic person.” It finally came to mean a reaction in
the soul, anger as a striking manifestation of a powerful inner reaction. So
the noun o)rgh is in contrast
to qumoj because o)rgh is essentially an
intentional type thing, intentionally oriented to its content. In other words,
it is a reaction that leads to revenge, to any kind of impulsive retaliation,
the punishment of someone else, acting as judge, jury and executioner. But the
next word used here, “indignation”—qumoj , has a slightly
different connotation. So o)rgh means not only
to become very angry in a reaction but to act as a judge and jury, not from the
facts but from the passion of one’s anger. It denotes irritation toward someone
and from that irritation negative judgment. In other words, you are judging
someone on the basis of being irritated with them rather than the facts of the
case. When ascribed to God as an anthropopathism it refers to divine judgment
on the unbeliever, especially the reversionistic kind. So this comes to mean
the concept of God’s anger protecting
from evil. God is righteously indignant, He judges from His justice, and He
executes. The second word, qumoj, derives from
the verb quw which is
translated “indignation.” Quw means to boil
up, to cause to go up in smoke. Hence, qumoj is an anthropopathism referring to the eternal
judgment of the unbeliever. So one of these words has to do with God’s judgment
in time and one with eternity.
Translation: “But to those on the other hand who from
inordinate ambition, also disobey the gospel [truth], but continue obeying
injustice [wickedness or evil resulting from salvation maladjustment to the
justice of God], anger [judgment in time] and wrath [judgment in eternity].”
Summary
1. Here, then, is
negative volition at the point of gospel hearing with motivation included. The
motivation is self-seeking, e)riqeia, the
self-seeking promotion of
the self-righteous unbeliever.
2. The
self-righteous type has inordinate ambition which demands the use of his own
arrogance related to his self-righteousness or legalistic modus vivendi.
3. Therefore, he
continues in obedience to maladjustment to the justice of God which becomes a
system of injustice in his life, a system of injustice, wickedness, evil, etc.
4. Disobedience
to the gospel, negative volition at salvation, means obedience to evil and the
perpetuation of that maladjustment.
5. Such
continuance of perpetuation of unbeliever reversionism causes the justice of
God to adjust to the status quo of the maladjusted, and that means o)rgh.
6. The justice of
God is expressed, then, in two anthropopathisms: o)rgh = judgment from the justice of God in time on both
a personal and national basis; qumoj = judgment from
the justice of God for eternity, the lake of fire. Either the unbeliever will
adjust to the justice of God or the justice of God will adjust to him.
In the next paragraph, verses 9-16, we see the judgment
function toward this evil. We are talking about a self-righteous evil, the
worst kind of evil, a person who is evil but thinks he is good.
In verses 9 &
10 we see the alternatives from the justice of God.
1. This context
is describing unbeliever reversionism or maladjustment to the justice of God at
salvation.
2. The previous paragraph, verses 7 & 8, described
the eternal alternatives.
3. Adjustment to
the justice of God at salvation by faith in Christ produces blessing. Salvation
blessing comes in at least 36 categories—blessing from divine justice.
4. Maladjustment
to the justice of God at salvation by rejecting Christ produces the cursing of
divine judgment—the great white throne.
5. From the eternal
alternative of the previous paragraph we move now to temporal alternatives.
6. First, the
temporal pay-off to the unbeliever or maladjustment in time. Then, the temporal
pay-off to the believer or the adjusted person in time.
7. Both Jew and
Gentile are included in each category. Therefore neither race nor culture is
the issue in the justice of God.
8. The issue, therefore, is the justice of God.
Verse 9 – a temporal cursing. “Tribulation and anguish” –
we have a predicate nominative from qliyij, it means
pressure, distress brought about by outward circumstances, affliction,
oppression, hence suffering. It is used here for personal suffering in contrast
to historical disaster. Since the verb is not stated but implied by the
predicate nominative we translate “There is pressure [personal suffering].” The
second predicate nominative, “and anguish,” stenoxoria, means distress, trouble. It is used here
for historical or national disaster. It is derived from the Attic Greek
adjective stenoj which means “narrow,
too tight, too tight a squeeze.” So there is pressure (personal suffering) and
distress (historical disaster). The justice of God uses both historical
environment and personal periphery for the administration of punitive action to
the unbeliever reversionist. He has rejected e)pignwsij gospel so he has both personal and national
disaster in his own periphery.
“upon every soul” – the preposition e)pi plus the accusative of yuxh. There is a problem here
because the preposition e)pi does not always
mean the same thing. E)pi plus the
genitive always emphasises contact; e)pi plus the
locative emphasises position; but e)pi plus the
accusative emphasises motion or direction. In this case e)pi plus paj plus yuxh is “for every soul.”
“of man” is the possessive genitive from a)nqrwpoj—“of mankind.”
This refers to the human soul and it indicates self-consciousness, emotion,
volition, and all of the essence of the soul. When there are the wrong things
in the soul it means disaster and pressure from the justice of God. The wrong
type of thinking in the soul comes from arrogance. The human soul is the issue,
then, in adjustment or maladjustment to the justice of God and all reversionism
is found in the soul. Lack of the gospel for the unbeliever and lack of doctrine
for the believer is the source of the problem. So always attitude toward
doctrine determines adjustment and maladjustment to the justice of God.
“that doeth evil” – the articular present middle
participle of the verb katergazomai which means to
achieve, to accomplish, to bring about, to create, to produce. The verb
connotes something on the inside working to the outside. Evil always exists in
the soul. The present tense is retroactive progressive present, it denotes what
was begun in the past and continues into the present time. Here is unbeliever
reversionism producing evil, but remember believer reversionism produces the
same thing. This is the middle voice of a deponent verb in which the form is
middle but the meaning is active. Here the unbeliever reversionist produces the
action of the verb. The participle is circumstantial for the unbeliever
reversionist producing the evil. With this is the accusative singular direct
object from the adjective kakoj, the word for
“evil.” It has the definite article with it because it is assumed that all
believers understand evil as a policy, and the use of the definite article is
to deal with something abstract and to make it contrary in the sense that you
already understand evil; therefore no additional explanation is evil. The Greek
just put a definite article in to demonstrate that principle. The definite
article is used with abstract nouns to indicate that this is an abstract
concept you have or must master before you can understand the general concepts.
In other words, the definite article in the Greek is totally different from its
use in English.
“of the Jew first” – racial or cultural things are never
issues; evil is the real issue. This is the genitive of reference I)oudaioj. The Jews are
mentioned because this is the fourth and most important of the post-diluvian
races. While the Jews are first and foremost in privilege they are not exempt
from the principle of adjustment or maladjustment to the justice of God. No
race is excluded, therefore race is not an issue. All races are included, even
the privileged race of the Jews. The adverb prwton is the adverb of degree and it means “especially”
or “above all.” The Jews as custodians of the written revelation, plus being a
priest nation, had the additional responsibility in this matter—“especially
with reference to the Jew.”
“and also of the Gentile [Greek]” – E(llhn, the name of the
Greeks. This is a reference to the Greek rather than to the Gentile generally
because there is a cultural issue here. E(llhn means a cultured person, a person who has great
systems of culture and language, and the expression of that in thought. So the
word is used in the broader sense of all who were under Greek influence and who
accepted the Greek culture. So rather than Jew and Gentile we have racial and
cultural issues. Cultured people are not excluded from the issue of the justice
of God.
Translation: “There is pressure [personal suffering] and
distress [historical disaster] for every soul of man who produces the evil,
especially with reference to the Jew, but also to the Greek.”
Principles
1. The
interpretation of this passage applies to the unbeliever reversionist directly.
2. Unbeliever
reversionism or salvation maladjustment to the justice of God produces punitive
action from God, both in time and in eternity.
3. This verse
deals with cursing from the justice of God against a nation depending upon
superiority of race, against a nation depending upon superiority of culture.
4. Evil is the
policy of Satan to which the unbeliever becomes vulnerable after rejecting e)pignwsij gospel.
5. Both the
immoral and self-righteous unbeliever practices evil.
6. Neither
morality nor immorality is excluded from the function of evil.
Application
1. While the
interpretation of this passage is to the unbeliever in reversionism the
application of the principle constitutes a warning to all believers.
2. Merely change
the object of negative volition and the issue is for the believer. (For the
unbeliever it is the cross and the gospel; for the believer it is doctrine)
Verse 10 – “But glory,” doca de. The postpositive conjunctive particle de emphasises a contrast
between unbeliever maladjustment to the justice of God and believer adjustment
to the justice of God. For the maladjusted there is temporal cursing but for
the adjusted there is temporal blessing described by three nouns. The first, doca, is a predicated nominative
which means that we go back to the verb inserted at the beginning, “there is.”
But this time instead of temporal and eternal pressure, suffering, disaster, we
find a contrast. “Glory” is used here to describe the secondary zone of
blessing for the believer. When a believer first cracks the maturity barrier he
enters the secondary zone which has two categories: super-grace A and
super-grace B. So starting at the maturity barrier we have the principle of
maximum adjustment to the justice of God.
“honour” – the second predicate nominative singular, timh. It means honour but it is
used here to describe the primary zone of blessing, ultra-super-grace status
where God is glorified and pleased, and the believer is honoured as the friend
of God.
“and peace” – the predicate nominative singular of e)irhnh, which means
peace but it generally has any connotation of peace that we think of in the
present world. But in the Greek language it has the connotation of prosperity.
So we translate it, “even prosperity.” In other words, there is prosperity for
the primary and secondary stages. In all of these there is special temporal
blessing.
“to every man” – this is not correct. This is the dative
singular indirect object from the adjective paj, and it should be translated “to each one” or “to
everyone,” bringing out the singular. The dative of indirect object indicates
the believer making the maturity adjustment to the justice of God through
maximum doctrine resident in the soul. It is also a dative of advantage to each
one involved. It is in contrast to the accusative of paj in the previous phrase
where paj is used as an
adjective, the object of the preposition e)pi, and it becomes, therefore, the basis by which
people are judged. But this time paj is used for
adjustment to the justice of God, whereas in the previous verse it was
maladjustment. “To each one” refers to the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ
who has cracked the maturity barrier or made maximum adjustment to the justice
of God through the daily function of GAP.
“that worketh good” – the articular present middle
participle from the verb e)rgazomai which means to
produce, to work, to be active, to accomplish; a dative singular of advantage
in the definite article, used here as a relative pronoun, and we translate,
then, “who accomplish.” The present tense is a retroactive progressive present
denoting something that occurs in the past and continues into the present time.
In other words, believers have cracked the maturity barrier and are now in a
state of maturity. The middle voice: this is a deponent verb which has a middle
form but is active in meaning, and here the active meaning simply says that the
positive believer toward doctrine adjusts to the justice of God and therefore
receives great blessing from God. The participle is circumstantial in keeping
with this concept. There is also an accusative singular of the definite article
with the accusative singular direct object from the adjective a)gaqoj, meaning good of
intrinsic value. The adjective is used here as a substantive for what is
intrinsically valuable or the possession of a higher order. So “the good”
refers to the attainment of spiritual maturity through the daily function of
GAP, maximum adjustment to the justice of God.
“to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” – in contrast
to the genitive of reference in the previous verse where we had Jew and Greek,
referring to the maladjusted unbeliever, here we have the dative singular used
for Jew and Greek. Believers who have attained maturity adjustment to the
justice of God through the daily function of GAP have maximum doctrine in the
soul, and the first one is “the Jew.” So we have the dative singular indirect
object and dative of advantage from I)oudaioj. Again, notice
that the Jew is the privileged race, and in a previous dispensation a priest
nation and custodian of the written Word from God. Plus the adverb prwton which this time
means “especially,” taking cognisance of their privilege. This is the dative of
advantage because it is to the advantage of any Jewish believer to crack the
maturity barrier and receive this special blessing. We also have a dative
singular indirect object and dative of advantage from E(llhn, referring again
to those who came under Greek influence, hence in a broad sense a cultural
concept. There is no partiality in the justice of God, both Jew and Gentile
believers have the same privileges and blessings in maturity adjustment to the
justice of God. This is the dispensation when there is no priest nation of
Israel, when a Jew joins with a Gentile when they believe in Jesus Christ and
become a member of the royal family of God forever. This is the dispensation
when the distinction which existed in the Age of Israel no longer exists, and
where Jew and Gentile have equal privilege when they crack the maturity
barrier.
Translation: “But glory and honour, even prosperity, to
each one who attains the good [maturity adjustment to the justice of God],
especially to the Jew, but also to the Gentile.”
Principle
1. Here is the
antithesis of unbeliever maladjustment to the justice of God. The believer is
adjusted to the justice of God but the unbeliever maladjusted having
rejected that portion of doctrine called
the gospel. The fully adjusted believer has accepted the whole realm of
doctrine into his soul through grace perception.
2. There is a
contrast in time between the maladjusted unbeliever and the fully adjusted
believer. It is the difference between cursing and blessing whether it is
time of historical prosperity or
historical disaster.
3. So a principle
of doctrine holds: either you adjust to the justice of God or the justice of
God will adjust to you.
Verse 11 – the impartiality of divine justice. “For” is
the illative use of the postpositive conjunction gar. It expresses a ground or a reason for something.
How is it that God can bless the believer, and how is it that God can curse the
unbeliever in time as well as eternity?
“there is no” – present active indicative from e)imi plus the negative o)uk, literally “for there is
not.” The negative o)uk is the strongest
of the Greek negatives, it denies the reality of an alleged fact. The present
tense is a static present, it represents a condition as perpetually existing.
The active voice: the justice of God produces the action of the verb. The
indicative is declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of
unqualified, dogmatic concepts of fact. This can be translated, “for there is
never.”
“respect of persons” – predicate nominative from the
compound proswpolhyia [proswpon = face; lhysia = from lambanw meaning to
receive]. It means to receive a face, and that means partiality or respect for
persons. But with the negative o)uk it means there
is never partiality. Partiality connotes bias, the inclination to favour one
party more than another, one face more than another. Divine justice is totally
free from partiality.
“with God” – the preposition para plus the locative denoting a person and indicating
that something precedes from this person, so we have the locative of qeoj, plus the definite article.
Para plus the
locative denotes presence. In other words, we are in God’s presence and we are
judged.
Translation: “For there is never partiality before the
God.”
Principle
1. Because of
past relationship with God the Jew often assumes a partiality with God toward
the Jew.
2. Because of
past relationship with God the citizens of the US often erroneously assume that
God would never judge their country.
3. Infinite
holiness acting toward other beings could only be impartial.
4. God is
infinite and eternal perfect. Therefore His justice is perfect.
5. Partiality
implies imperfection in the function of justice. Divine justice administers
whatever penalty divine righteousness demands. Furthermore, divine justice
provides whatever blessing divine righteousness approves.
6. God’s perfect
righteousness reveals the divine love for His holiness.
7. While love is
the motivation for blessing, divine love as an attribute of God must be
expressed through righteousness resulting in divine justice being the
source of blessing and cursing.
Application
1. No matter how
great human self-righteousness is, no matter how much accumulation of human
good there is, no matter how sweet or how pleasing the
individual
personality, the justice of God is never influenced by these or any other
factor. The justice of God, then, is impartial, without bias, without
prejudice,
without
predilection.
2. The righteous
standard for the function of the justice of God is the courtroom scene of the
crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. From the divine viewpoint this
righteous
standard demonstrates the fact that even though the love which existed between
the Father and the Son was eternal, this did not hinder the justice of the
Father from judging the Son, putting justice before love, so that salvation
might be available to all. Therefore impartiality is demonstrated by the cross
from the divine side.
3. The love
between the Father and the Son is indescribable, beyond human understanding and
perception.
4. The cross is
the place of either adjustment or maladjustment to the justice of God—John
3:16, 18, 36.
5.
Self-righteousness is a part of spiritual death and it makes no impression on
the supreme court of heaven.
6. Anything man
can do from his own ability will neither save nor provide any blessing from the
justice of God—Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5.
7. Only what God
does impresses God. God is never impressed with what anyone else can do. This
fact alone eliminates partiality from the justice of God.
8. What man can
do never impresses God. God is impressed with God’s attributes, not with man’s.
9. Therefore God
is impressed with God’s righteousness, justice, and with what His integrity can
produce—grace.
10. Grace excludes pleasing personalities, human good,
self-righteousness.
11. This
anticipates verse 12. The principle: You cannot build your righteousness on the
principle of snobbery. Snobbery is arrogance plus self-righteousness.
12. Having the
Mosaic law made snobs out of the Jews. Illustration: the rich young ruler,
Matthew 19:15ff.
13. Distorting
the law into a system of legalism and self-righteousness led the Jews to
substitute snobbery for integrity.
14. You cannot
build your righteousness on someone else’s unrighteousness; neither can you
build your righteousness on snobbery.
Verse 12 – the
illustration. The self-righteous type represents the Jew under the law. He is
just as guilty before the justice of God with
the law as the Gentile is without the
law. “For as many as” – the postpositive conjunctive particle gar, used as an explanatory
conjunction to illustrate the principle of the previous verse. With it is the
nominative masculine plural from the correlative adjective o(soj, used to indicate the
Gentile type reversionistic unbeliever described in Romans 1:18-32, and again
by the noun E(llhn in 2:9,10.
“have sinned” –
aorist active indicative from a(martanw which means to
miss the mark or to sin. The constative aorist contemplates the action of the
verb in its entirety, it takes the sinning of the Gentile type and gathers it
into a single whole. The active voice: the Gentile reversionistic unbeliever
produces the action of the verb, as noted in the principle and the function of
Romans 1:18-32. The indicative mood is declarative for unqualified assertion
and simple statement of fact.
“without the law” – this is the shock to the Jew. It is
the adverb a)nomoj. It connotes
living in ignorance of the Mosaic law. It can also be translated “having no
law.”
“shall also perish” – the adjunctive use of kai plus the future middle
indicative of a)pollumi, which means to
ruin, to be ruined, to destroy, to be destroyed. The future tense is a gnomic
future for a statement of fact which may be rightfully expected under
conditions of unbeliever reversionism. The middle voice is the indirect middle
emphasising the agent as producing the action of the verb. The agent is the
unbeliever reversionist, Gentile type, not having the law. The indicative is
declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of absolute
reality, the reality of the integrity of God—the justice of God judging
unbeliever type reversionists, both Jew and Gentile, and assigning them to the
lake of fire.
The significance of the middle voice is very important in
a)pollumi.
1. The subject,
the reversionistic unbeliever, participates in the results of the action.
2. The subject or
agent acts with a view toward participating in the outcome.
3. The middle
voice relates the action more intimately to the subject than the active voice
does.
4. The middle
voice is never used without some reference to the subject in the context.
5. The indirect
middle signifies that the action is extremely closely related to the verb.
“and” – the continuative use of the conjunction kai to complete the conclusion;
“as many as” – the nominative plural from the correlative adjective o(soj, used to indicate the
self-righteous type of unbeliever reversionist, illustrated by the Jew under
the Mosaic law. The Jew that is represented here is one who was very strong in
the law, was taught the law from childhood in great detail, went through all of
the ritual of the law. The principle is building righteousness on someone
else’s righteousness and maintaining righteousness from arrogance rather than
from establishment integrity. So distortion of the law to a system of legalism
causes self-righteous snobbery to be a substitute for character, and
self-righteous types are just as much sinners as any other category.
“have sinned” – aorist active indicative of a(martanw. The aorist is
constative, gathering into one entirety the act of sin or transgression under
the Mosaic law. The active voice: it categorically refers to the sins of
self-righteous types but it specifically refers to Jewish unbelievers failing
to keep the law but using the law as a way of salvation. The indicative mood is
declarative representing the reality of sin, even with perfect standards.
“in the law” – e)n plus the
locative of nomoj, “under the
law”; “shall be judged” – future
passive indicative of krinw. The justice of
God judges self-righteousness. This is a gnomic future tense for a statement of
fact which may be expected under conditions of unbeliever reversionism in
Israel with the Mosaic law. The passive voice: the unbeliever reversionist in
Israel receives the action of the verb, both judgment in time and eternity. The
indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal action from the
viewpoint of reality.
“by the law” – dia plus the
genitive of nomoj should be
translated “through law.” We have an anartharous construction here. The absence
of the definite article calls attention to the perfect quality of the law. Just
because the law has been distorted into a system of self-righteousness it does
not detract from its perfection. The law is perfect.
Translation: “For
as many as have sinned without the law also shall perish: and as many as under
the law have sinned, through the law will be judged.”
Principle
1. Regardless of
environment the entire human race is both sinful and spiritually dead. Some
have the environment of heathenism and some have the
environment of
the perfect Mosaic law, but all are spiritually dead.
2. Nevertheless
with or without the Mosaic law all people have an old sin nature and still sin,
and this principle is true after salvation as before—1 John 1:8.
3. With the law,
then, there is a tendency toward self-righteousness and a maximum accumulation
of human good.
4. Not only does
the Mosaic law set up a standard to determine sinfulness and define
hamartiology but the Mosaic law also reflects the absolute standard of God’s
eternal, infinite, perfect righteousness. In other words, the Mosaic law
reveals the integrity of God.
5. The sins of
the Jewish unbeliever were judged by the justice of God on the cross. Therefore
the sins of the Jewish unbeliever will not be mentioned at the last
judgment.
6. The law
inspires the Jewish unbeliever to accumulate human good and build his case for
self-righteousness.
7. But the human
good of self-righteousness was rejected at the cross and reserved for judgment
at the great white throne.
8. On the other
hand, the righteousness of God is immutable, perfect and infinite, and can
never change to accommodate any self-righteous types.
9. To adjust to
the justice of God at salvation man therefore must discard illusions about
self. He must discard self-righteousness in favour of receiving divine
righteousness.
10. This can only
be accomplished by personal faith in Jesus Christ, which is known as instant
adjustment to the justice of God.
11. The
accumulation of self-righteousness and human good will only condemn the
unbeliever, it will not save him.
12. The more
intensified the effort to be saved by keeping the law, the more human good and
self-righteousness is accumulated. Therefore the more guilt and the greater
condemnation from the justice of God—Romans 4:4.
13. Therefore,
the self-righteous unbeliever is just as much under condemnation as the immoral
or heathenistic unbeliever without the law.
14. The justice
of God is impartial. It condemns the self-righteous type just as quickly as the
immoral type without the law.
15. Jew and
Gentile unbeliever are equally maladjusted to the justice of God and equally
guilty before the judgment throne of God.
16. Morality or
human righteousness is never the basis of salvation. Due to the impartiality of
the justice of God the unbeliever, regardless of environment or
circumstances, is
condemned and judged in time as well as in eternity.
Verses 13-15, the parenthetical amplification. This is a
parenthesis, and on the other side of verse 15 in verse 16 we have the rest of
verse 12.
The anticipated
concept
1. The principle
stated in verses 11 & 12 is quite a shock to self-righteous types, Jew or
Gentile, but especially a shock to the Jew under the law who always considered
it was an advantage to have the law. (He is right until he distorts the law)
2. To discover
that he is as guilty as the immoral Gentile unbeliever before the justice of
God is unpalatable, totally foreign to his thinking. He thinks of the Goi as something inferior, uncouth and
uncultured. It is a shock to him to realise that the justice of God regards him
with his self-righteousness in the same way.
3. To the Jew
under the law the standards of the law are distorted into a check list by which
he can keep track of his self-righteousness and count up his human good.
4. Such self-righteousness
feeds pride, inflates the ego and gives momentum to arrogance. Inevitably it
leads to evil.
5. It is very
difficult for the person who has been building up his self-righteousness on the
immorality and unrighteousness of the Gentile, and distorting the law by making
favourable comparisons to himself, to be told that while by comparison he is
better than the immoral man of Romans chapter one and even though he is
impressed with his own righteousness, God is not impressed at all.
6. Strict observation
of the law neither saves nor justifies before the integrity of God—James 2:10;
Roman 3:20, 28; Galatians 3:10-12.
In the
parenthesis, verses 13-15, there are two assumptions. These are two delusions
in verse 13 which actually
belong to the self-righteous Jew. In verse 14 is the first reputation which
answers the second assumption of verse 13. Then in verse 15 we have the second
reputation answering the first assumption.
Verse 13 – “For
not the hearers of the law” begins with the postpositive conjunctive particle gar, used often to express the
cause or reason, but here it
becomes the explanatory
conjunction and translated “For you see.” Plus the strong negative o)uk which refutes the delusion
of the self-righteous man, and the nominative plural subject from a)kroathj, which means
those who sit in the congregation and listen to teaching, a student in that
sense. It refers here to the Jew being taught the Mosaic law. The inculcation
of the Mosaic law and the observation of it does not impress the integrity of
God. God is not impressed just because people listen to the teaching, it is the
acceptance of that teaching the inculcation of that teaching, the transfer from
one lobe to the right lobe, that really counts. In itself it is not meritorious
merely to be a student of the law, nor is it meritorious in the second
assumption to be a doer of the law.
“are just” – changing the translation into better
English: “For you see the hearers [students of the law] are not just.” The verb
e)imi is understood, if
not found in the context. “Just” is in the predicate nominative, it is an
adjective, dikaioj. It means
adjusted to the justice of God or related to the integrity of God. Dikaioj connotes
connection with tradition or custom. While it is translated “righteous” it is a
Greek word for virtue. In this context it means adjusted to the justice of God,
the greatest virtue of all.
“before God” is the preposition para plus the dative of qeoj. Qeoj is always used
of a person. The preposition para plus the dative indicates
the judgment of someone, i.e. God, so we translate “before the God.” There is a
definite article to indicate someone with whom the readers are familiar.
“but” – ordinarily this is the adversative conjunction a)lla, but it has a different
meaning here. It is used ordinarily to set up a contrast or to link contrasting
statements, but not here. This is the intensive or emphatic or confirmatory use
of a)lla, therefore it
will be translated a little differently. The reason that this use is possible here
is because of the negative on the previous clause. The way it should be
translated: “in fact, not.”
“the doers of the law” – the nominative plural subject of
poihthj and is correctly
translated “doers.” Plus a descriptive genitive singular of nomoj—“doers of the law.” The
words, “in fact the doers of the law” is the beginning of the second
assumption. It is a reference to the hard-core self-righteous types who are not
students but are real hustlers, workers. They try to be justified before God by
a long system of good deeds which they have developed from the law. This is
what is called the functional religious snob. Like the rich young ruler they
are proud of their self-righteousness and human good. So great is the arrogance
of such a person that he assumes that the justice of God will give him
salvation on the basis of doing the law.
“shall be justified” – we have the negative brought over
by the confirmatory/emphatic use of a)lla, plus the future
passive indicative of dikaiow: “in fact the
doers of the law shall not be justified.” This is a predictive future. The
passive voice: the doers of the law will not receive justification, they have
no relationship with the integrity of God. The indicative mood is declarative
for a dogmatic statement of fact.
Translation: (“For you see the hearers of the law are not
just before the God, in fact the doers of the law shall not be justified.”
So we have the student and the doers. Both are using the
law and distorting the law, and both groups are rejected.
Principle
1. The hard-core
self-righteous types content that being taught the Mosaic law, being a student
of the law, does not provide overt manifestation for evaluation of one’s righteousness.
2. When produces
human good by doing the law he always compares his self-righteous deeds with
the sins and failures of others—those who do not have the
law. He
establishes a system of comparative righteousness and takes this comparative
righteousness and says God must accept it. That is an assumption, and the
integrity of God rejects every form of self-righteousness.
3. Complete
delusion by doing the law and the resultant self-righteousness, this
self-righteousness is used a standard to compare one’s self favourably, not
only with immoral man, like a Gentile without the law, but with God’s
righteousness.
4. Rationalised
self-justification is erroneously assumed to be adjustment to the justice of
God, or acceptable to the integrity of God.
5. In this verse
there are two basis for self-justification or self-righteousness—being a
student of the law and being a doer of the law.
6. In reputation
the next two verses, 14 & 15, demonstrate that Gentiles who are neither
students of the law nor doers of the law can produce an equivalent
righteousness to the Jews since the Jews have developed their
self-righteousness by comparing themselves with the Gentiles.
7. If apart from
the law the Gentile can produce an equivalent self-righteousness then obviously
the self-righteousness of the Jew under the law is neutralised as far as
adjustment to the justice of God.
8. So the Gentile
production of human good neutralises the Jewish production of human good
because the Gentile produces it apart from the law. So this removes the law as
an instrument of justification. To use the law as an instrument of salvation or
an instrument of justification converts the law into an instrument of
condemnation.[5]
Verse 14 – the first reputation is directed toward the
second assumption. The second assumption of verse 13 deals with the doers of
the law; this is to refute their assumption. The doers of the law are never
justified, cannot be adjusted to the justice of God. The next reputation, verse
15, deals with the students of the law.
“For when the Gentiles” – the postpositive conjunctive
particle gar plus the
temporal particle o(tan used with the
present subjunctive when the action of the subordinate clause it
contemporaneous with the main clause, and that is its use here. So the
translation should never be “when” but “every time that”—“For every time that.”
“the Gentiles” – e)qnh, the subject in the nominative singular referring
to the Gentiles. This is an anartharous construction emphasising the quality of
these Gentiles. Why do they have quality? Because they didn’t have the law but
they were just as good as the Jews with the law.
“which have not” – the articular present active
participle of e)xw plus the
negative mh. The definite
article is used as a relative pronoun to amplify the status of these Gentiles
and therefore we use the relative pronoun for the translation—“who.” Then we
have the present tense of the participle, a historical present event. The
active voice: Gentiles without the law produce the action, an equivalent
righteousness. The participle is circumstantial.
“the law” – the accusative singular direct object from nomoj; “do” – the present active
subjunctive of poiew. The present
tense is retroactive progressive denoting something which has happened in the
past and continues into the present time. The active voice: Gentiles without
the law produce the action. They have never heard or seen the Mosaic law but
they have an equivalent righteousness. The subjunctive mood is a potential
subjunctive qualified by the element of contingency.
“by nature” – the instrumental singular of manner from fusij. This is an incorrect
translation. The instrumental is often used in translation like an adverb, and fusij means natural endowment or
condition, natural characteristic, and it also means instinct and here it
should be translated not “by instinct” but “instinctively.”
“the things” – the accusative neuter plural of the
definite article used as a demonstrative pronoun referring to the functions of
the law, and should be translated “those things.”
“contained in the law” – incorrect. This is the ablative
of source singular from nomoj and should be
translated “from the law.” They didn’t do anything contained in the law because
they didn’t have the law, but they did something equivalent to it so we have
the ablative of source of nomoj plus the definite
article. The ablative of source implies the original situation which
contributed to the source. In other words, to translate this “contained in the
law” would imply that they have the law. But they didn’t have the law so you
can’t say “contained in the law.”
“these not having the law” – the nominative masculine
plural subject from the immediate demonstrative pronoun o(utoj, again
emphasising the greatness of many Gentiles. Plus the present active participle e)xw plus the negative mh. This is a historical
present. The active voice: the moral Gentile minus the law produces the action,
he instinctively does those things that are right. The participle is
circumstantial. The accusative singular direct object of nomoj minus the definite article
emphasises that the law is perfect. Just because people distort it, it doesn’t
detract from its perfection. “Those ones not having the law” is the phrase,
literally. The emphasis is on the fact that the Gentiles minus the Mosaic law
can accomplish the same righteousness as the Jews with the law. So the law,
then, is not an issue. It is only an issue to arrogant self-righteousness.
“are” – present active indicative of e)imi. Them present tense is a
perfective present, it is used to denote the continuation of existing results.
It is a reference to the fact that that which has come to be in the past has to
be emphasised as a present reality. This has been true in the past, therefore
it must be a reality right now, says Paul. There have always been Gentiles who
did not have the law and yet who had an equivalent righteousness. The active
voice: the Gentiles minus the law produce the action.
“a law” – predicate nominative from nomoj, this is an anartharous
construction. In other words, without the law they were a law “unto themselves”
– dative plural indirect object of the reflexive pronoun e(autou. The dative of
indirect object from the reflexive pronoun indicates that the action expressed
by the verb is referred back to its own subject, but it is referred back as a
blessing, they are a law to themselves.
Translation: “For every time that Gentiles, who do not
have the law, do instinctively those things from the law, these, not having the
law, are a law unto themselves.”
1. This refutes
the false notion that doing the law justifies or adjusts to the justice of God.
2. Totally apart
from the law the Gentiles produce an equivalent self-righteousness.
3. The number of
Gentiles in each generation achieve the same standards of morality and
righteousness as do the Jews with the law.
4. The
difference: Gentiles apart from the law achieve what the Jews achieve with the
law.
5. Both Jew and
Gentile are equally guilty before the supreme court judge. God is impartial.
6. There is
neither partiality nor discrimination in any of the judgments from the
integrity of God.
7. The works of
the Gentiles produced apart from the law and the works of the Jews produced by
the law cannot attain salvation adjustment to the justice of God.
8. The production
of the law is not necessary for justification, nor an equivalent righteousness
in a Gentile group. No one can achieve justification by doing or
keeping the law.
Verse 15 – the second reputation is designed to answer
the first assumption of verse 13. “Which” is the nominative masculine plural
qualitative relative pronoun o(stij. A qualitative
relative pronoun indicates persons belonging to a certain category. It should
be translated something like “The very ones who.” Then the word “shew” is the
present middle indicative from the verb e)ndeiknumi. It means to demonstrate something to
someone, to manifest, to display, to give an outward proof of something. We
translate it “demonstrate. The present tense is an iterative present, it
describes what recurs at successive intervals of history. The middle voice is
the indirect middle, it emphasises the agent as producing the action rather
than participating in its results. The indicative mood is declarative for
historical reality.
“the work of the law” – accusative singular direct object
of e)rgon, meaning deed or
accomplishment. It refers to the deeds of the Gentiles, minus the law but
exhibiting a consistent moral character just as if he has a law. Plus the
descriptive genitive referring to the Mosaic law, nomoj.
“written in their hearts” – these Gentiles do not have
the Mosaic law but they instinctively have it in their soul. This is the
accusative singular direct object from a verbal adjective, graptoj. With it is a
prepositional phrase, e)n plus the
locative of kardia, plus a
possessive genitive plural from the intensive pronoun a)utoj. It should be
translated “written in their right lobes.”
Now follows two genitive absolutes. A genitive absolute
is composed of a noun and a participle, both in the genitive case but not
dramatically connected with the rest of the sentence. In other words, a
genitive absolute is a noun or a pronoun to which the participle refers and the
genitive becomes the subject of the participle, and as a subject it completely
divorces itself from the concept of the sentence dramatically but adds to it
grammatically. Now we have a participle and the subject is in the genitive, and
it does basically the same thing.
The first genitive absolute says “their conscience also
bearing witness.” There is no Greek word for “also.” The word “conscience” is
the subject, and it really can’t be a subject because it is in the genitive
case; it is the genitive singular of suneidhsij, which means to
know with or the conscience. There is also a possessive genitive plural from
the intensive pronoun a)utoj, referring to a
category—category Gentile without the law, the Gentile without the law compared
to the Jew with the law. The genitive of suneidhsij is used as the subject of the particle. It
is in the genitive case and as soon as you take a genitive case and make it a
subject you divorce it from the rest of the passage, and you add something
dramatic. Then the participle, “bearing witness” – present active participle,
also in the genitive case, and the verb is summarturew. It means to testify, to bear witness with,
to testify in support of something or someone, it also means to confirm—“their
conscience confirming the testimony.” The participle is in a present tense,
retroactive progressive present, denoting something begun in the past and continuing
into the present time. The active voice: the conscience of the Gentile produces
the action of the participle in the genitive acting as a subject of the
participle. The participle is used as a part of the genitive absolute, and the
first genitive absolute, then, adds something so dramatic that it knocks the
Jew right off of his self-righteous perch.[6]
The second genitive absolute begins with the word “and.”
This is the emphatic use of the conjunction kai—“in fact”; “their thoughts” – genitive plural from logismoj with the
definite article. The word “their” in the KJV is incorrect, being in italics.
The definite article in the genitive case is actually used as a possessive
pronoun. The word “their,” therefore, is a part of the text. Again, the
genitive is going to be used as the subject of the participle. It is correctly
translated “thoughts”—“in fact, their thoughts.”
“the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” –
the adverb metacu is used as an
improper preposition here, used with the genitive a)lloj which means “other [of the same kind].” While this
means literally “between one another” or “among themselves” it is an idiom in
the Greek. It is translated simply “alternately.” Then the present active
participle of in the genitive case of kathgorew, which means to accuse. This is a retroactive
progressive present which indicates something begun in the past and continuing
into the present time. This is the way self-righteousness builds itself up in
thinking—by first of all accusing others. The active voice: Gentiles without
the Mosaic law do this. They have a system of norms that are so great and so
superior to those who are students of the law that in their arrogance they can
get together and be cynical of others. We have a disjunctive particle to
indicate the alternative, h), and it separates
opposites which are mutually exclusive. There is a lot of difference between
maligning someone else and then excusing or defending yourself. So we have a
second present active participle in the genitive case, a)pologeomai, which means to
defend yourself. When you start to accuse someone else, to malign and slander
others, then alternately with that you are always defending your own
self-righteousness.
Translation: “The very ones who demonstrate the accomplishment
of the law written in their right lobes, their conscience confirming the
testimony, in fact their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending
themselves;)”
The two words, “accusing” and “defending” indicates,
first of all, that the self-righteous Gentile without the Mosaic law slander
and malign and condemn others. They also get together with like kind and defend
themselves—their standards and their norms—before the integrity of God by
saying that their –R, their self-righteous standards, mean that they should be
accepted in heaven.
Verse 16 – “In the day” is e)n plus the locative of h(mera, “day.” Sometimes
the word “day” refers to 24 hours, sometimes to a thousand years (the day of
the Lord), sometimes to an instant of time (the day of Christ, the Rapture).
Here the word “day” refers to a judgment. The period of time over which it
takes to accomplish it is unknown, but this is a point of time, the great white
throne judgment, the last judgment. This last judgment is going to find
millions and millions of people who are maladjusted to the justice of God, who
have rejected the integrity of God by rejecting the gospel. The gospel reveals
the integrity of God to the sinful and spiritually dead human race. The gospel,
then, becomes the issue with regard to a decision—the use of human freedom.
“when God shall judge” – present active indicative of krinw. The present tense is a
futuristic present, it denotes an event which has not yet occurred but because
it is so certain to come it is put in the present tense instead of the future.
It means that this judgment will come at a time when the integrity of God will
judge everyone who has rejected Christ.
“the secrets of men” – Note that sins are not mentioned.
Sins are already judged at the cross. Human good is judged here. The accusative
neuter plural direct object from kruptoj, and adjective
used as a substantive. It means “hidden things.” You see the results of hidden
things but you do not see the hidden things—the norms and standards. In other
words, not only does Revelation 20:12-15 say that good deeds will be the basis
of indictment at the last judgment for the unbeliever, but this passage says so
will their norms and standards be indicted, their “secrets.” We all have norms
and standards and they may not be revealed, but the result of them is revealed.
The possessive genitive of a)nqrwpoj for “men”—“in
the day God will judge the secrets of those men.” This is a reference not only
to the book of works in Revelation 20:12,13, but to the norms and standards of
human good, the norms and standards of self-righteousness.
“by Jesus Christ” – dia plus the genitive and it should be “through Jesus
Christ.” He is the judge; “according to my gospel” – kata plus the accusative of e)uaggelion [e)u = good; aggeloj = communication
or news] means good communication of good news, and it is now a technical
word—“according to the norm or standard of my gospel.”
Translation: “In the day God will judge the secrets of
those men through Jesus Christ according to the standard of my gospel.”
Verses 17-29, the judgment function of the integrity of
God toward the Jew. Verses 17-20 are simply the protasis of a conditional
sentence. Then the next two verses are the apodosis.
Verse 17 – the misconception of legalism. (There are four
misconceptions in the protasis of verses 17-20.) It begins with three Greek
words, E)i de su, translated by
two words in the English of the KJV, and a poor translation. “Behold, thou” is
meaningless, obscure.
1. The first word
is the conditional particle e)i, “if,” which
used with any tense of the indicative mood introduces the protasis of a
conditional clause.
2. In a
conditional sentence there are two clauses: protasis and apodosis.
3. The clause
containing the supposition is called the protasis.
4. The protasis
of a first class condition is a supposition from the viewpoint of reality—if
and it is true, or if and we assume it is true. The second class condition
is supposition from the viewpoint
unreality. The third class condition is supposition from the standpoint of
possibility. The fourth class condition is supposition
from the standpoint of probability. The
protasis is verses 17-20 (the conditional sentence).
5. The clause
containing the statement based on the protasis or the conclusion to the
protasis is called apodosis. The apodosis is verses 21-23.
Next is de, the second word
in the Greek sentence which is why it is called postpositive, enclitic. If it
were the first word, which it never is, it would be called prepositive. This is
the postpositive conjunctive particle used as an adversative conjunction to set
up a contrast between the self-righteous Gentile—verses 1-16—and the
self-righteous Jew—verses 17-29. Paul has already demonstrated that the
self-righteous Gentile has an equivalent righteousness with the self-righteous
Jew. So de is the dividing
line between the two. In the English we do not have post and prepositive or
enclitic particles, so we always start out “But if” rather than the Greek form
which is “If but.” The third word is su, second person
singular personal pronoun. It is a reference to the self-righteous Jew. Now
because we are going to have a very strong contrast, instead of “but if” we can
keep the word order by saying “If on the other hand you” or “But if on the
other hand.”
“thou art called” – the word “thou” is taken from su and we translated it “you.”
Then the present passive indicative from e)ponomazw, taken from two words: e)pi = to or upon; onomazw = to name.
Hence, to attach a name, to name after, to nickname, to give a second name, to
surname. This is the only occurrence of this verb in the New Testament. By
compounding o)nomazw Paul takes
racial and national pride away from the Jews. If he had wanted the Jews to
retain their racial and national pride he would have onomazw, and that would
have been correctly translated “Thou art called.” But there is no such o)nomazw here, it is e)ponomazw and it is an
entirely different word. It means to be classified. It is impersonal. So Paul
takes all of the pride out of the Jew because they are leaning on it in their
self-righteousness. There is nothing wrong with the Jewish race but if it is a
source of self-righteousness then the race is distorted into something it is
not. Corrected translation: “If on the other hand you are classified as a Jew.”
The present tense is a retroactive progressive present, it denotes what was
begun in the past and continues into the present time. The Jews who are
self-righteous will always have a problem in this area. The passive voice: the
Jew receives the action of the verb, his arrogance is removed by the simple
adding of a preposition compounding the verb. The indicative mood is
declarative for historical reality.
“a Jew” – proper noun I)oudaioj, a non-declinable word. It is the direct object but
it always occurs in the nominative case because in spite of the fact that Paul
is taking the wind out of their sails they are the greatest people who ever
lived. It indicates that Paul is going to be totally objective even though he
himself is the greatest Jew who ever lived, apart possibly from Moses.
Furthermore this is an anartharous construction, there is no definite article
in front of it. The absence of the definite article emphasises the qualitative
aspect of the proper noun rather than its mere identity.
“and restest in the law” – the connective kai, plus the present middle
indicative of e)panapauw which means to
rest upon. In other words, Paul knocks them down to pick them up and show them
that they were resting on the wrong thing. They were resting on the law for
adjustment to the justice of God. The present tense is a static present for a
perpetual condition among Jewish legalists. The middle voice is a dynamic
middle which emphasises the part taken by the subject in the action of the
verb, i.e. reliance on the Mosaic law for salvation. The indicative mood is
declarative for the historical reality of Jewish legalism depending on the law
for the approbation of God. Then the locative of sphere in the singular of nomoj—“law,” minus the definite
article to show that Paul has the greatest respect for the law. The Jews were
disrespectful of the law by trying to use it as an instrument of salvation.
There is nothing wrong with the law, it is perfect; there is something wrong
with those who distort it into a system of salvation and spirituality by works.
We have a combination of two conjunctions here—kai, kai for “not only
but also.” So, “and not only rely upon the law” for salvation adjustment to the
justice of God. We put in the definite article in the English because that is
comparable to the lack of the article in the Greek. “If on the one hand you are
classified as a Jew [and you are], and not only rely on the law [for
salvation]. Then kai the second time
means “but.”
“makest thy boast of God” – present middle indicative
from kauxaomai for “boast.”
This is a retroactive progressive present tense denoting what has happened in
the past and continues into the present wherever there are Jewish legalists.
Legalism among the Jews is always related to the law. The middle voice: this is
a deponent verb, middle in form but active in meaning. The Jewish legalists
produce the action of the verb, they boast about relationship with God related
to the law. The indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal idea
from the viewpoint of reality. Not only do they use the law as an instrument of
salvation, but they boast about the fact that they have a relationship with God
on the basis of the law. Plus the preposition e)n, plus the instrumental of qeoj. Again, the absence of the
definite article before qeoj emphasising the
perfection and superiority of God rather than His identity.
Translation: “If on the one hand you are classified as a
Jew [and you are], and not only rely on the law [for salvation], but also you
boast about relationship with God [and you do].”
Principles
1. There are
three assumptions or delusions of the self-righteous Jew portrayed in three
verbs in the present tense: a) The present passive indicative of e)ponomazw indicates racial pride of the self-righteous Jew;
b) e)panapauw in the present
middle indicative indicates the standard of works on which the self-righteous
Jew relies for salvation; c) The present active indicative of kauxaomai indicating the
arrogance of the self-righteous Jew in assuming a relationship with God on the
basis of his own works rather than divine integrity.
2. The three
verbs combine racial, functional, and mental arrogance. They combine to produce
self-righteousness and religiousness. Both religiousness and self-
righteousness, either separately or combined,
are resisted by the integrity of God.
3. However the
religious, self-righteous Jews boast a relationship with God which they do not
actually possess.
4. The three
verbs combine to form an illusion of superiority which does not exist. (The
Jews do have superiority but it takes doctrine to know it)
5. As this
protasis of a first class condition continues into the next three verses other
delusions are specified. In verse 18, distortion of the law; in verse 19,
misplaced confidence in self; in verse 20, an arrogant emphasis on
superficiality.
Summary
1. God loves His
own righteousness and He can’t stand self-righteousness. God’s love for His
righteousness makes it impossible for His righteousness to be
compromised.
2. God’s
righteousness demands equivalent righteousness. Man cannot produce God’s
righteousness, only sinfulness. When he tries to reproduce an equivalent
righteousness it
comes out sinfulness plus evil.
3. God’s justice
judges and condemns sinfulness.
4. Before God can
give His perfect righteousness to a sinner the sins of the sinner must be dealt
with by the justice of God.
5. The sins of
the world are poured out on Christ and judged by the justice of God.
6. Therefore
instant adjustment to the justice of God at salvation and resultant imputation
of God’s righteousness can only be attained by believing in Jesus
Christ, because
believing is totally non-meritorious.
7. Self-righteous
types judge others by the use of slander, gossip, maligning, evil criticism.
8. The
self-righteous type regards himself as the favourite of a partial God because
of his conformity to the legal forms of the Mosaic law.
9. But inwardly
the self-righteous type is sinful, evil, vicious, despising the real
manifestations of God in Bible doctrine.
10. All
relationship between God and man is based on the justice of God where the polar
antagonism in the administration of divine justice produces either blessing or
cursing.
11. The day of
the rejection of the gospel is the day of inward reversionism and the beginning
of temporal divine judgment on evil in the self-righteous unbeliever.
12. These
judgments from the justice of God are a prelude to the awful eternal judgment
of the self-righteous believer at the great white throne. That judgment
results in the
eternal lake of fire.
Verse 18 – the distortion of the law. Arrogance assumes
to the point of presumption. It is presumption on the part of arrogance to
assume that they know the will of God, that they have the will of God. In fact,
they claim that they have a monopoly on the will of God. But they don’t know it
at all. You cannot know the will of God apart from the will of God. “And
knowest his will” – the continuative use of the conjunction kai, plus the present active
indicative of ginwskw, meaning to
understand, to know. This is a tendencial present tense, used for an action
which is attempted though it does not actually occur. They don’t really know
the will of God, they think they know it. The active voice: the legalistic Jew
produces the action of the verb—any self-righteous person by application. The
indicative mood is the interrogative indicative, the viewpoint of reality is
implied in the illusion enquired into when the indicative is used in the asking
of a simple question. Also, the accusative neuter singular direct object from
the definite article, used here as a possessive pronoun, plus the accusative
neuter singular direct object from the noun qelhma which goes with the possessive pronoun. This is
translated, “And he knows his will.” This is presumption, he doesn’t really
know it. The Jewish unbeliever in his legalistic reversionism is under the
illusion that by learning and keeping the Mosaic law he has come to understand
the will of God. Self-righteousness assumes to be doing the will of God.
Legalism assumes that human righteousness is equivalent to divine
righteousness.
“and approvest the things that are more excellent” – this
is not quite correct. The problem is the present active indicative of the verb dokimazw. The present
tense is a progressive present, it depicts the action of the verb in progress
or in a state of persistence. The active voice: the legalistic self-righteous
Jews produce the action of the verb. The indicative mood represents the verbal
action from the viewpoint of reality, therefore it is declarative. This should
be translated, “and accept as approved.” Then the accusative neuter plural of
the definite article used as a demonstrative pronoun for the category of
self-righteous deeds and thoughts—“those things.” Plus the present active
participle from diaferw. The word means
to differ, to be different, to be worth more than or to be superior to. This is
an adjectival participle to qualify the definite article used as a
demonstrative pronoun. Therefore it should be translated not as a participle
but simply as an adjective—“and approve those superior things.”
Principle
1. This is the
delusion of self-righteousness in Israel, that whatever the legalist approves
is superior to all else.
2. The legalistic
Jew or Judaiser has approved as superior standards that which is in opposition
to the holiness or integrity of God.
3. They have
approved a righteousness from keeping the law as equivalent or superior to
God’s righteousness. Therefore they have rejected Christ as the
source of God’s
righteousness, the source of imputed righteousness.
4. Here is the direct conflict with legalism and
self-righteousness.
5. God loves and approves His own righteousness.
6. God’s
righteousness is eternal, infinite, perfect, incorruptible, and one half of His
integrity (the other half being His justice).
7. God’s justice condemns what falls short of God’s
righteousness.
8. So God judges from perfect righteousness, always.
9. On the one
hand the self-righteous type loves his own righteousness which provides the
deluded and false confidence to judge others.
10. On the other
hand God rejects the self-righteousness of the legalist, and in this passage
the Jewish legalist. The statement of His rejection is found in Isaiah 64:6.
11. God rejects
both the righteousness of the self-righteous and the maligning judgments of the
self-righteous.
12. The self-righteous is guilty of both blasphemy and
presumption.
13. God can only
judge the self-righteous, He cannot bless the self-righteous from His justice.
That is why the believer who is self-righteous is always under discipline.
14. The
ascriptive present participle diaferw is translated
“superior” – “superior things.” This is sarcasm about the self-confidence of
the self-righteous.
“being instructed out of the law” – this includes a
present passive participle from kathxew, which means to
sound in the ears, to make the ears ring, to instruct orally, to teach and to
instruct. This is a retroactive progressive present denoting what is begun in
the past and continuing into the present time. Translation: “since he is
instructed.” The passive voice: the self-righteous Jew receives the action of
the verb, the instruction of the law. The participle is a causal participle
denoting the ground of action for the main verb. Plus the preposition e)k with the ablative of both
the definite article and the noun nomoj—“law.”
Translation: “And knows his will, and approves those
superior things, since he is instructed from the law.”
Remember that this is not a fact of truth but a
sanctified sarcasm reflecting the delusion of the self-righteous Jew under the
Mosaic law. He doesn’t really know the will of God and he doesn’t really
approve superior things, this is a piece of sarcasm taken from the delusion of
self-righteousness.
1. Self-righteous
types have distorted the law and its content from condemnation of their status
to commendation of their self-righteousness.
2. They have
learned the law as a catechism and they seek to keep the law for production of
their own righteousness.
3. Then they take
this righteousness to God and they demand that it be accepted for salvation.
4. The justice of
God does not bend to human whims.
5. The justice of
God does not accommodate itself to human righteousness or human fantasies of
self-centredness.
Verse 19 – “And art confident,” an enclitic particle de, used to indicate the close
relationship between the two clauses. So we have a transition indicating that
we are moving on to similar and very close concepts. It should be translated
“Moreover.” Plus the perfect active indicative of peiqw which is translated in terms of confidence. This is
a perfect which has a present meaning. The perfective present denotes the
continuation of existing results. The active voice: the self-righteous
legalistic Jew produces the action of the verb. At the time in which Paul wrote
they were trying to keep the law for salvation, but their self-righteousness
only produced condemnation rather than justification. The indicative mood is
declarative representing the verbal action from the viewpoint of historical
reality of reversionism among Jewish unbelievers. They were maladjusted to the
justice of God, they had no relationship with divine integrity, but they had a
false confidence.
“that thou thou thyself art” – an accusative of general
reference, which means we have a reflexive pronoun for a subject, seautou, used as the
subject of the infinitive. Plus the present active infinitive of e)imi. Literal translation:
“Moreover, you are confident that you yourself are.” The progressive present
tense of e)imi denotes the
action of the verb in progress, or in a state of persistence. The infinitive is
part of the accusative of general reference.
“a guide of the blind” – the accusative singular of the
noun o(dhgoj. It acts as a
predicate nominative but in the accusative case to match the accusative case of
the subject, the accusative of general reference. It is correctly translated “a
guide.” Plus the descriptive genitive plural from the adjective tufloj, “blind” or
“blind ones.” The adjective acts as a noun, it’s in the plural, and this is
what happens when people become arrogant—they become blind.
“a light of them which are in darkness” – literally, “a
life with reference to those in darkness,” e)n plus the locative of skotoj.
Translation: “Moreover, you are confident that you
yourselves are a guide of blind ones, a light with reference to those in
darkness.”
This is a distortion of the true doctrine of Israel as a
priest nation. This distortion takes the maladjusted Jew and gives him a role
totally incompatible with his reversionism and legalism. The evil Jew in his
arrogant self-righteous reversionism is not a part of that priest nation. In
fact, he is destroying his own nation. This arrogance and self-righteousness of
the scribes and the Pharisees, the legalists, finally destroyed it twelve years
after Paul wrote this verse to the Romans.
Priest Nation
A priest nation
is a national entity under the principle of divine institution #4 responsible
for the custodianship of Bible doctrine. Before Israel such custodianship
involved divine revelation apart from scripture. Since Israel has become a
nation it is involved in authorship, custodianship, and dissemination of the
written Word. Additional custodianship was assigned to Israel in the formation
of the New Testament, since all except two of the writers of the New Testament
were Jews. During the time of the formation of the New Testament the priest
nation changed from Judah to the Roman empire. A client nation is a synonym for
a priest nation, but there is one slight difference. In the beginning the
priest nation of Israel had a specialised priesthood functioning in the
nation—the Levitical priesthood. But many of the nations thereafter did not
have a specialised priesthood and consequently the client nation is used as a
synonym. However, God had always had and always will have in history a priest
or a client nation. So client nation is a synonym for priest nation emphasising
logistical grace through Gentile nations. A client nation to God is a nation
under divine protection because it has a large pivot of mature believers.[7]
Verse 20 – the arrogant emphasis on superficiality, or a
teacher’s delusion. “An instructor of the foolish” – an accusative singular
from paideuthj. This is a part
of the accusative of general reference and therefore paideuthj is the subject
of an infinitive. Paideuthj means training,
instruction through discipline, hence a disciplinarian or a drill master. So we
can call this an instructor, with overtones of discipline. Plus the present
active infinitive of e)imi, used as a part
of the accusative of general reference. Then the objective genitive of a)fron—“foolish.”
Translation: “An instructor of the foolish [or, ignorant] you are.” Gentiles
without the Mosaic law were regarded by the self-righteous Jew as ignorant and
foolish. The self-righteous unbelieving Jew was arrogant. He had a knowledge of
the law which he distorted. And not only did he distort it in relationship to
his own life but he turned right around and tried to teach these distortions to
the Gentiles.
“a teacher of babes” – the accusative of general
reference, didaskaloj is the word for
“teacher.” Self-righteousness can only make converts for self-righteousness. A
self-righteous person always superimposes on everyone around him his
self-righteousness. Plus the objective genitive plural from nhpioj, meaning a
minor, immature one.
“which hast” – present active participle from e)xw, translated simply
“having.” This is a descriptive present for the status of the Judaisers who
followed Paul. The active voice: arrogant self-righteous Jews produce the
action of the verb. The participle is circumstantial.
“the form of knowledge” – accusative singular direct
object from morfwsij which means an
outward form or appearance, an embodiment, formulation, or any connotation of
forming or shaping. Obviously it deals with the superficial and that is what it
connotes here. This is a verbal noun which denotes the activity of shaping, or
the result of this activity. In other words, what is fashioned, what is formed.
It always has an external connotation and therefore is translated “perceptible
form” [outline without substance], or “superficial.”
“of knowledge” – descriptive genitive singular from gnwsij, meaning
knowledge. The self-righteous legalist is using the Mosaic law, or distorting
the Mosaic law, to promote and sponsor his legalism. Therefore he has gnwsij of the law but
he does not have e)pignwsij of the law. If
he was a believer he would be utilising the law correctly and establishing a
relationship with the integrity of God. But instead, as an unbeliever learning
the law by rote he is using it as a system of self-righteous works, the very
antithesis of grace and the very antithesis for the existence of the law. In
other words, he understands the law only in a human frame of reference, he does
not understand the doctrinal implications of the law in its relationship to the
Lord Jesus Christ and adjustment to the justice of God at salvation.
“and of the truth in the law” – a connective kai, plus the descriptive
genitive singular from a)lhqeia which means
truth or doctrine. There is also the definite article in the genitive singular
case indicating something which is well known to the reader, namely doctrine,
and the prepositional phrase e)n plus the
locative of nomoj – “and the
doctrine in the law.”
Translation: “An instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of
immature ones, having a superficial form of knowledge and the doctrine in the
law.”
Summary
1. This is the
arrogant self-righteous teacher’s delusion, the arrogant emphasis on
superficialities.
2. The primary
purpose of the Mosaic law is condemnation, but the legalistic Jewish teacher in
his arrogance turns it around into commendation.
3. The Mosaic law
reveals how to adjust to the justice of God, but the legalistic self-righteous
Jew rejects e)pignwsij gospel,
distorting its contents into a system of arrogance and
self-righteousness—therefore distorting something wonderful into a system of
evil.
4. The Judaisers
and the Pharisees, the unbeliever scribes of Israel, used didactic impressions
rather than doctrinal interpretation which would relate to the grace of God and
the integrity of God.
5. Didactic
impression in the sense, then, of fitting into a teaching system of legalism,
grace principles but converting them into anti-grace principles.
6. From Jewish
legalism, superficial form of knowledge of the law, came the rabbinical
traditions—the Talmud, etc.—where superficialities have varied the true
doctrinal content
of the law.
7. Here, then, is the arrogance, the corruption, the
distortion, the evil of the Judaisers.
Verses 21-23, the five questions of the apodosis.
Principles
1. The
conditional sentence begun in verse 17 with an extensive protasis now concludes
with the apodosis.
2. The protasis
of the first class condition (in the Greek) presents supposition from the
viewpoint of reality.
3. The reality is
the arrogance, self-righteousness and legalism which Judaism has extracted from
the Mosaic law.
4. Certain
questions based on the protasis are now presented in the apodosis where we have
interrogation based on the reality supposition of the protasis.
5. The self-righteous
Jew is religious. He is guilty of teaching the law as a system of salvation by
works.
6. But the
self-righteous Jew is inconsistent with his own system. He himself cannot keep
the law.
7. Like all
arrogant and self-righteous people the Jew emphasises what he can do while
minimising what he fails to do.
Verse 21—“Thou
therefore which teachest another.” The nominative masculine singular
prepositive definite article, o(. All of this
begins an anacoluthon. It is very rare to begin a sentence with a prepositive
definite article. Paul suddenly breaks of the long sentence he began in verse
17 and starts over with these five questions, so we have the anacoluthon in a
conditional sentence, a dramatic and unusual formation. The inferential
particle o)un introduces an
inference from the protasis. Always, when you have a protasis in a conditional
clause in the Greek the apodosis draws inference from the protasis. But you
can’t draw inference from the protasis if you have an anacoluthon, the
anacoluthon makes a syntactical break. So to show that there is still an
inference being drawn by these questions, rather than by indicative sentences,
there is the insertion of an inferential particle. The word “teachest” is the
present active participle of didaskw, it means to
teach or instruct. This is a historical present, it views a past event with the
vividness of a present occurrence. It is also a progressive present denoting a
state of persistence. They persisted in teaching the law in a form of
distortion. The active voice: the self-righteous and legalistic Jew produced
the action of the verb. This is a temporal participle, translated “when you
teach.” Then the accusative singular direct object from e(teroj, meaning another
of a different category, referring generally to Gentiles.
“teachest thou
not thyself?” How can you teach what you don’t know? This is how Paul
approaches them. We have here the accusative singular direct object from the
reflexive pronoun seautou, “yourself.”
This is the present active indicative of didaskw. The present tense is a customary present for what
may be reasonably expected to occur. The active voice: the self-righteous
person or legalistic Jew is not interpreting the law correctly himself. The
indicative mood is the interrogative indicative used for reality in a question.
Plus the negative, and it should be translated, “do you not teach yourself?”
Principles
1. This is the
format question for the next three.
2. The
self-righteous Jew emphasising stealing, fornication and idolatry almost to the
exclusion of the other commandments dealing with hamartiology.
3. Therefore a
format question creates a mould for the three things emphasised by Judaism.
4. The emphasis in this context will be on the
inconsistency of self-righteousness.
Now the second question: “thou that
preachest a man should not steal” – you can’t teach the Mosaic law without
cracking down on stealing. First we have the articular present active
infinitive from the verb khrussw. It doesn’t mean to preach in the
sense of just shouting or a public proclamation, it means a proclamation that
communicates a message. The word “preach” simply means that you are speaking to
more than one person, and therefore you have to raise your voice in order to be
heard by more than one person. In other words, you are not having a
conversation, a dialogue, you are speaking to a group of people. Khrussw means one person speaking and everyone else listening. In ancient
Greece this was used of a person called a khruc who was the herald of the king. There
is a definite article here which is used as a personal pronoun following an
anacoluthon. It has to be used with the present active infinitive to indicate
that it hooks up to the anacoluthon, the very dramatic change in syntax—not a
change in thought but a grammatical structural change to show the drama of the
occasion. The present tense is a retroactive progressive present, denoting what
began in the past with Judaism and continues as legalism into the present. The
active voice: the Judaisers as the legalists produce the action of the verb.
There is nothing wrong with teaching against stealing but they have taken a
self-righteous attitude about not stealing and distorted it into a way of
salvation. The infinitive with the negative mh is the imperative infinitive, and
therefore it is translated “you who proclaim in a loud voice, Thou shalt not steal.” The self-righteous
Judaiser quotes the eighth commandment which deals with something which is a
violation of human freedom as well as a sin, but he is teaching it wrong. He
not only quotes it but he adds his own interpretation. He says that if you
steal you are going to hell. You don’t go to hell because you steal and you
don’t go to heaven because you don’t steal. The issue is John 3:36. Cf. Matthew
15.
Verse 2, “the tradition” is the oral
law handed down in ex-cathedra
fashion and later codified in the Mishna. While the Old Testament did not
command the washing of hand before meals it was a good idea because it was
sanitary. But the rabbis took something which was good and sanitary—washing
hands before meals—and made it a sign of spirituality. Therefore they distorted
it. Good sanitation does not mean salvation.
Verse 3 – “ … Why do you also
transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” Religion
substitutes religion for doctrine. It distorts doctrine into a false system of
legalism, self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
Verse 4 – “For God commanded [Ex.
20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16], saying, Honour your father and mother: furthermore,
he who speaks evil of his father or mother, let him be put to death.”
(Rejection of one of the most basic authorities in life)
Verse 5 – “But you say, Whoever
shall say to his father or to his mother, Corban,
[a gift or sacrifice brought to the altar and dedicated to God].” The Levitical
sacrifices were called in Lev.1-6, Corban.
In the days of the Pharisees when Jesus was speaking to them, they changed it
up a little. The religious self-righteous Jew distorted the word by lifting it
from its biblical context and expanding it do include, gifts, offerings, money
into the temple. He would bring it to the priest—money instead of an animal
sacrifice—and he would say, “Corban,”
i.e. a gift dedicated to God. But some of the Jews had a different system, and
by our Lord’s day this had been accepted and was operational for 100 years.
What could be done was to dedicate (in order to avoid taxes and other things)
your entire estate. You could go to the priest with a piece of paper which
said, “I dedicate my estate to God.” Corban!
You could keep on using your money as before but if your parents came to you
and said they were broke, starving, and could you help us, he could say no
because my estate is Corban. This
happened quite frequently, and so there was a hypocrisy. While the fifth
commandment required children to help their destitute parents, reversionistic
children refused. The Corban
justified the non-support of destitute parents. The Corban gimmick illustrates how religious self-righteousness places
tradition above doctrine.
Verse 6 – Jesus comments that this
is not honouring his father or his mother, and so you [the Pharisees]
invalidate the law for the sake of your tradition.
Verse 7 – Then Jesus adds: “You
hypocrites” … etc., verses 8, 9. So this explains the impact of the second
question in Romans 2.
Romans 2:21— the Corban gimmick was stealing. It was used
to avoid financial obligations of all kinds.
Translation: “You therefore, when you teach another, do
you teach yourself? you who proclaim in a loud voice, Thou should not steal, do
you steal?”
Verse 22 – the
third question. “Thou that sayest” is
the articular present active participle from the verb legw, a very common verb for
communication of thought meaning to say, to speak, etc. This is a nominative
masculine singular prepositive definite article which goes with the participle,
and it is still a part and a continuation of the anacoluthon. The present tense
is retroactive progressive present denoting something which has happened in the
past and continues into the present time. They keep on communicating this in
order to build up their own self-righteousness. The active voice: the
self-righteous legalistic Jew produces the action of the verb, i.e. he
constantly builds up his own self-righteousness through teaching, yet he is
guilty of the same things. The participle is circumstantial. They have to be
blind in order to do this, and this is exactly what they do.
“a man should not commit adultery” – the negative mh plus the present active
infinitive of moixeuw which means to
fornicate. The present tense is an aoristic present for punctiliar action in
present time. The active voice: students of Judaism are prohibited from
producing the action of the verb, and they so teach it but they do it, and
therefore they fail to see the real purpose of the law. The purpose of the law
is not to commend someone’s self-righteousness because they teach some portion
of it, but to condemn everyone’s unrighteousness and/or sinfulness. The purpose
of the law is to demonstrate that all of us are sinners, not to prove that
anyone is self-righteous or has any right to any category of righteousness,
except that which is given by God from His integrity—His absolute in
righteousness. This is an imperative infinitive with the negative, and it
should be translated “thou shalt not fornicate,” a reference to the seventh
commandment found in the Decalogue—Ex. 20:14.
“dost thou commit adultery” – present active indicative
of the same verb, moixeuw, this time again
the aoristic present tense for punctiliar action in present time. The active
voice: the self-righteous instructor in Judaism is now charged with the fact
that the Mosaic law, the part in question, is not to build up
self-righteousness but to condemn everyone in the human race. The indicative
mood is the interrogative indicative used to ask a question related to reality.
The answer to this question in that, yes, everyone is
guilty before the law. The very ones who are very pious about their lack of
fornication nevertheless have fornicated, says the Word of God. Jesus Himself
is quoted dealing with this subject. The Judaisers were all guilty of mental
adultery. Cf. Matthew 5:27, 28. To illustrate their condemnation: John 8:3-11.
Note: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
This drew attention to the fact that all are guilty under the law. Also:
“Neither do I condemn you.” She was a believer; she called Him Lord [Kurioj]. When she
believed in the Lord all of her sins as an unbeliever were blotted out—Isaiah
43:25; 44:22. The woman had just believed in Christ, her sins were blotted out.
Then Jesus adds one more thing. Literally from the Greek: “Depart and no longer
sin.” This is the problem part of the passage, it does not imply, as appears on
the surface, sinless perfection.
Principle
1. “Depart and no
longer sin” does not imply sinless perfection or even that she would never
again sin. It does imply that she is motivated by grace rather than
by lust.
2. Here is where
we get a great issue. Grace is the greatest restrainer of sin. Furthermore,
from now on when she does sin, as inevitably she will, she has
available the rebound technique.
3. This also
means that the restraint of condemnation on this occasion does not imply the
restraint of divine justice toward sin. Divine justice judged this sin on
the cross, several years later, as with
all sin.
4. This is also a
warning from Jesus not to repeat this sin of adultery which under the Jewish
law is a criminal action. It is a warning that next time she will die
for it. In other words, He is telling her
not to become involved in criminal action. The repetition of criminal action
would result in punitive action from the
state, which would be legitimate in this
case, and state action is capital punishment.
The fourth question: “thou that abhorrest idols” –
articular present middle participle from bdelussomai which means to excite disgust, to be
disgusted by a loathsome odour. It finally came to mean to detest or to abhor
anything, not just a loathsome odour. The present tense is a progressive
present for a state of persistence. The indirect middle emphasises the agent as
producing the action. The agent is, again, the self-righteous Jew. The
participle is circumstantial. With it is the accusative plural direct object
from e)idwlon, from which we
get our English word “idol.” Translation: “you who persistently despise idols.”
“dost thou commit sacrilege?” – present active indicative
from i(erosuluw
which
means to rob an idol temple. The present tense is an aoristic present for
punctiliar action. The active voice: self-righteous Jews use as an excuse to
steal from heathen banks the fact that they were guarded by an idol. Heathen
temples were also banks. These Jews were not above walking into an idol temple
in order to steal. They were distorting the second commandment and using it as
an excuse for stealing. Cf. Acts 19:37.
Translation: “You who say, Thou shalt not fornicate, do
you fornicate? you who despise idols, do you rob idol temples?”
Here is the inconsistency of self-righteousness. In
keeping the second commandment they were violating the eight commandment, “Thou
shalt not steal.” Each of these questions is designed in such a way as to bring
out something very special. Note that they wouldn’t think of stealing but they
used religion to steal—the Corban
gimmick. Then they went to the problem of fornication. It was used for the
simple reason that they did not overtly commit fornication, but they all did it
mentally. This emphasised that their mind is where they are distorting these
things. It then goes right back to stealing again by picking up idolatry, which
they avoided in their self-righteousness, except that they would steal from an
idol temple. This is rationalisation all the way. Principle: Self-righteous
people fantasise or rationalise, depending on how smart they are. They always
come up with an image of their own perfection, their own sinlessness, their own
greatness. They assume that they are great in the eyes of God. The
rationalisation of legalism is incompatible with divine integrity, especially
divine justice; inconsistent with the fulfilment of righteousness. Note: The
worst believers in the world are always self-righteous, and self-righteous
believers leads to apostasy and apostasy leads to the destruction of the
nation.
This anticipates the 5th question dealing with
the fact that legalism is dishonouring to God and totally incompatible with
God’s grace.
Verse 23, question #5. Obviously they had been boasting in
the law. “Thou that makest thy boast of the law”— following the anacoluthon the
second person singular pronoun is inserted here as “you.” This pronoun is
derived from the person and the number of the verb plus the nominative singular
of the relative pronoun o(j, translated
“who”—“You who.” Then the present active indicative of kauxaomai which means to
boast. It is a deponent verb. The present tense is a customary present for what
habitually occurs with arrogant, self-righteous, legalistic people—believer or
unbeliever. Here we are dealing specifically with the Judaisers who have
misinterpreted the law and, as a matter of fact, he is using the law to promote
himself. What is the purpose of the law? First of all to demote the entire
human race, not to promote. But they are using it to promote themselves when
it’s purpose is to demote everyone. We are all demoted; we have all sinned and
come short of the glory of God. The indicative mood represents the verbal
action from the viewpoint of reality, hence it is a declarative indicative.
They are boasting in the law. With this is the prepositional phrase e)n plus the locative of nomoj—“in the law.” “You who keep
boasting in the law.” By interpretation this is the legalistic Jew who uses the
law as the means of salvation, as per the book of Galatians. They contend that
they are adjusted to the justice of God because they have kept the law
perfectly. They produce at the same time a human good which they assume that
will compare favourably with divine righteousness. Their presumption is
blasphemous, an attack upon the integrity of God.
“through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? – the
preposition dia plus the
genitive of parabasij which means
“transgression” or “violation.” Then the objective genitive of nomoj—“through violation of the
law do you dishonour the God.” We have the present active indicative of a)timazw, meaning to
dishonour. The present tense is a customary present for what habitually occurs
when the Jews try to be saved by keeping the law. The active voice: the
legalistic, self-righteous Jewish unbeliever produces the action of the verb.
This is an interrogative indicative for the question. Also, the accusative
singular direct object of the proper noun qeoj for “God”, with the definite article because this
is someone familiar to them.
Translation: “You who keep boasting in the law, through
violation of the law do you dishonour the God?”
Principle
1. The legalistic
Jewish unbeliever has not only dishonoured the integrity of God by his
maladjustment to the justice of God at salvation but at the same time he has added insult to his maladjustment by
blaspheming, by violating or transgressing the very law he uses as an
instrument of salvation.
2. Legalistic
reversionism rejects salvation by faith in Christ and substitutes salvation by
keeping the law—salvation by works.
3. But the
self-righteous Jewish unbeliever fails through his human good as well as
through his sins to measure up to the very standard he has selected for
his salvation. He selects a standard he
can’t keep, a standard designed to kill him, to condemn him. He is trying to
have life through an instrument of death.
4. The pro-nomian
perverter of the Mosaic law becomes the antinomian blasphemer of the law. In
other words, hypocritical, self-righteous legalism contradicts good doctrine.
5. Pride in the
letter of the law is not conformity to the spirit of the law.
6. Legalism,
then, is a contradiction between principle and function.
Verse 24— the reversionistic failure of a priest nation.
“For the name of God” – the postpositive conjunctive particle gar, used to express a
self-evident conclusion, should be translated in an inferential manner,
“Consequently.” Plus the nominative singular subject from o)noma, which means
name, title, category, person, reputation, fame. Here it means “reputation.”
Then a possessive genitive singular from qeoj—“Consequently the reputation of God.” There is also
a genitive singular definite article modifying the word “God” and used to
indicate someone well known to the readers. This is a reference to the holiness
of God, His integrity.
“is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you” – this actually begins with the words “through
you,” di’
u(maj blasfemeitai e)n toij e)qnesin. So it starts out
literally, “because of you”—because of the priest nation of Judea. In this
clause the prepositional phrase is first for emphasis, dia plus the accusative plural
from the personal pronoun su, “all of you.”
The pronoun refers to the Jews, self-righteous, arrogant, legalistic,
maladjusted to the justice of God at salvation. “Consequently the reputation of
the God because of you is blasphemed,” present passive indicative of blasfemew, which means to
slander when used of people, to blaspheme when used of God. That is the way it
is translated, it can also means “maligned.” This is a progressive present
tense, it denotes the action of the verb in a state of persistence—linear
aktionsart. The passive voice: the integrity or reputation of God receives the
action of the verb—slander, maligning, blasphemy from Gentiles. The indicative
mood is declarative representing the verbal action from the viewpoint of
historical reality. Gentiles were blaspheming the name of God because of the
obvious self-righteous hypocrisy and legalism of the Jews at that time. Then
the preposition phrase, e)n plus the
locative plural of e)qnoj, used for the
Gentiles; it also means “nations” – “among the Gentiles.” As individuals, as
nations, the Jew as a member of a priest nation was responsible for presenting
the gospel to the Gentiles. He was responsible for communicating doctrine and
the preservation of the Word. Instead of fulfilling these things as a part of
the priest nation he was simply using the Word of God, twisting it and
distorting it into a system of salvation by works.
There is an additional phrase which belongs to this verse
and indicates that this verse is quoting Isaiah 52:5—“as it stands written.”
Translation: “Consequently the reputation of the God is
slandered among the Gentiles because of you, just as it stands written.”
Principle
1. As a priest
nation Judea in the time of Paul was responsible for the custodianship of the
written Word of God, both its composition and its preservation, as well as its communication.
2. In addition
the priest nation of Judea was responsible for evangelisation, the inculcation
of Bible doctrine, and providing a haven for the Jew during periods of
anti-Semitism.
3. Self-righteous
reversionism and legalism of the Judaisers resulted in the distortion of doctrine,
therefore the distortion of the integrity of God. Note: If you distort the Word
of God you automatically distort the integrity of God.
4. This
distortion was detected by the common sense and discernment of the Gentiles who
could penetrate the self-righteous facade of Judaism and consequently blame God
for it.
5. The blasphemy
of the Gentiles resulted from self-righteous legalism from among religious
Jews.
6. Instead of
attributing such hypocrisy to the failure of the Jews who were maladjusted to
the justice of God at salvation the Gentiles maligned and slandered
God by ascribing
to Him the legalistic evil of the Jews.
7. The failure of
the Jews resulted in the administration of the 5th cycle of
discipline to Judea, twelve years after Paul wrote this epistle. The function
of the priest nation of Judea passed to her conquerors, the Romans. Imperial
Rome became God’s client nation.
“as it stands
written” is really a part of the next verse. It includes the adverb kaqwj,
indicating a quotation. Then
the perfect passive indicative from the verb grafw. The perfect tense is a dramatic perfect, the
rhetorical use of the intensive perfect indicating something completed, and the
results continue. The passive voice: the passage quoted from the Old Testament
scripture receives the action of the verb, it is permanently a part of the Word
of God and therefore an expression of the integrity of God. The indicative mood
is declarative for the reality of the canon of the Old Testament scripture.
In verses 25-27 we have the fallacy of ritual without
reality. The function of Judea as the priest nation plus the previous function
of the united Israel [Ephraim and Judah] raises a series of questions regarding
circumcision and true Israel. Therefore two major questions are raised for the
rest of this chapter. First question: What is the significance of ritual
circumcision? Second question: What is a true Jew and what is a false Jew? This
is a question answered in verses 28 and 29.
Verse 25 – the concept of a race is introduced. The
beginning of the Jewish race deals with the subject of circumcision. “For
circumcision verily profiteth” –
The first word in the Greek
test is the word peritomh, the word for
circumcision, nominative singular subject. The absence of the definite article
emphasises the qualitative aspect of the noun. It is very important to realise
that in the beginning circumcision was very meaningful. The first man
circumcised was Abraham who had maximum doctrine resident in his soul. It was
not so much the outward circumcision that was significant, it was the doctrine
related to it. When you knock out the doctrine and still have the ritual then
you lose the meaning. It is the doctrine that counts, not the ritual by itself.
Abraham had a son, Ishmael, who was also circumcised, but Ishmael was minus
doctrine and circumcision had no meaning except that it had obedience. God commanded that Ishmael be circumcised
also. Obedience was involved here but there is no ritual meaning, except
blessing by association. He was a trouble-maker all of his life but he had
moments of great blessing, all of which were associated with his father.
Also with this word is the postpositive particle men. It is an affirmative
particle used correlatively here with the particle de, meaning on the one hand and on the other. Plus the
postpositive conjunctive particle gar, an inferential
particle for a self-evident conclusion. The verb is the present active
indicative of w)felew which means to
help, to aid, to benefit, or to be beneficial. “So on the one hand circumcision
is beneficial.” The present tense is a customary present, it denotes what
habitually occurs when there is maximum doctrine resident in the soul or where
maturity adjustment to the justice of God exists. Obviously circumcision was
beneficial to any Jew who had the same amount of doctrine in his soul that
Abraham had when he was circumcised. The problem with the Jew is that God’s
command was to be circumcised on the eighth day, when a child obviously has no
doctrine, so his circumcision was a reminder to him where he was going with
regard to the integrity of God. The integrity of God was the principle and that
he must adjust to the integrity of God—salvation adjustment and maturity
adjustment. Even though the Jew has the genes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in
his body, he must have the doctrine of Abraham in his soul. The customary
present denotes what habitually occurs when there is maximum doctrine in the
soul. The active voice: circumcision produces the action of the verb, it’s a
ritual. The ritual after Abraham was to challenge to maturity, challenge to
adjustment to the integrity of God. The declarative indicative mood represents
the verbal action from the standpoint of its reality. The reality of
circumcision is found in the fact of maturity adjustment to the justice of God.[8]
“but if thou be a breaker of the law” – begins with the
conditional conjunction e)an, which with the
subjunctive introduces the protasis of a first class condition. With this is
the affirmative particle de, meaning “on the
other hand.” This is the second conditional sentence in this verse, the first
one, it will be recalled, reversed the protasis and the apodosis. We have de used correlatively with the
affirmative particle men, and it is all translated “but if on the other hand.”
Then the present active subjunctive of the verb e)imi. The present tense is a retroactive progressive
present denoting what has begun in the past and continues into the present
time. The action, as will be seen, is the self-righteous unbeliever, especially
the Jewish type, who is producing the action. The subjunctive mood is the
potential subjunctive, part of the protasis of the third class condition. This
subjunctive also implies a future reference being qualified by the element of
contingency—“if on the other hand you are.” Then we have the problem, “a
breaker of the law” – the predicate nominative of parabathj which means a transgressor or a violater. The
objective genitive from the noun nomoj refers to the
Mosaic law being abused, distorted and misused by arrogant, self-righteous Jews
trying to use it as a vehicle of salvation rather than a vehicle of
condemnation.
1. While this is the
protasis of a third class condition it tends toward reality for the real status
of these Jewish unbelievers, as actually stated here.
2. There are two third class
conditional clauses used because the possibilities are explored as principles
rather than stating the actual historical reality. Another principle: When you
have the word “if” introducing a third class condition, followed by an other
“if” introducing another third class condition, the second class condition
gives the reality. Since this is, then, the actual situation—violation or
transgression of the law—this status quo of the unbeliever is maladjustment to
the justice of God.
3. Circumcision is related
to the believer who is adjusted to the justice of God. It is a ritual without
reality for unbelievers.
4. Esau and Jacob were
twins. One was a Semitic Gentile; the other was a Jew. Esau was negative toward
the gospel, maladjusted to the justice of God. Jacob was positive toward the
gospel and therefore he believed in the Lord, and so adjusted to the justice of
God. So one was adjusted and one was maladjusted, and that divided them for
time as well as for eternity. Jacob is the perpetuation of the Jewish race;
Esau is the perpetuation of the Semitic race of the Edomites. The difference,
then, was adjustment to the justice of God at the point of salvation.
“thy circumcision is made uncircumcision” – the
nominative singular subject from the noun peritomh, and with it the genitive singular personal pronoun
su, “your
circumcision.” All Jews were circumcised on the eighth day, but this was only
the ritual; it anticipated reality. The anticipation was not always fulfilled
in every case. Some Jews believed in the Lord and some did not. In 586 BC we
have the Jews suffering through the historical disaster of the 5th
cycle of discipline because they were uncircumcised of heart—Jeremiah 6:10;
9:25, 26. Distortion of the law into a system of legalism and
self-righteousness destroys the significance of the ritual, it portrays the
maladjustment of those involved. Then
the perfect active indicative of the verb ginomai which means to become—“has become.” The intensive
perfect tense emphasises a completed action and the existing result. When
special attention is directed to the results of the action stress upon the
existing fact is intensified, and this is the Greek emphatic method for
presenting a fact in a very strong way and saying that a thing not only is but
will continue to be so. The active voice: circumcision as a ritual produces the
action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative for the reality. Then
comes the predicate nominative “uncircumcised,” the nominative of a)krobustia. So the final
phrase is, “if on the one hand you are a transgressor of the law your
circumcision has become uncircumcision.”
Translation: “So on the one hand circumcision is
beneficial if you accomplish the purpose of the law [salvation adjustment to
the justice of God through faith in Christ]: but if on the other hand you are a
transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”
This means
1. Ritual without
reality is meaningless.
2. The whole
purpose of the Jewish race is related to the adjustment to the justice of God.
3. The new race
ritual was circumcision, a sign of Abraham’s maximum adjustment to the justice
of God.
4. This blessing
which came from his maturity adjustment to the justice of God, or maximum
doctrine resident in the soul, was a part of the promise that Abraham would have a son from his own loins,
and from this son would come a new race which would be the means of bringing
the Messiah into the world.
5. Where
maladjustment to the justice of God is concerned the spiritual connotation of
ritual circumcision is erased and the status of the Jew involved is
“uncircumcised of heart” and/or maladjusted to the justice of God.
6. Therefore
there is no reality in ritual, the reality always lies in the doctrine that
makes the ritual meaningful. The doctrine must be in the soul for the ritual
to become meaningful.
7. Neither the
ritual of circumcision nor the function of keeping the law can provide
salvation.
Verse 26 – “Therefore if the uncircumcision.” We have our
third conditional clause—e)an
o)un is the way the verse begins: e)an is a conditional conjunction introducing a 3rd
class condition, e)an plus the
subjunctive; o)un is an
inferential particle, used to denote that whatever is introduced has its
inference from the previous sentence—“If therefore.”
“the uncircumcision” – the nominative singular subject
from a)krobustia, referring here
to the Gentiles, the person who has not had the ritual of circumcision, the
person who has not had the benefit of the Mosaic law to evangelise him and to
teach him these wonderful things—“If therefore the uncircumcised.”
“keep the righteousness of the law” – present active
subjunctive from the verb fulassw, which means to
defend, to guard, to protect, and used with nomoj it means to observe or even to keep the law. The
present tense is a retroactive progressive present denoting what was begun in
the past and continuing into the present time. Always in every generation there
are certain people who have never heard of circumcision, who have never heard
of or seen the Mosaic law, and yet these people have already produced the
righteousness of the law; and they are constantly used by Paul to make this
particular point. The active voice: the Gentile minus the ritual of
circumcision, minus the spiritual heritage of the Mosaic law, produces the
action. The subjunctive mood goes with the 3rd class condition, it
implies future reference as a rule, but here the principle of contingency. Plus
the accusative plural direct object from dikaioma, which means the requirements or regulations
pertaining to the law. Originally it meant a legal claim but here is means a
righteous requirement. With the ablative of source of nomoj it means “righteous requirement from the law.” So the protasis:
“If therefore the uncircumcised Gentile observes the righteous requirements
from the law.”
Next we have a question used as an apodasis. It begins
with the strong negative o)uk in a question,
implying that the answer to the question is yes. Plus the nominative singular
subject a)krobustia for the
uncircumcised Gentile, this time with a possessive genitive singular from the
intensive pronoun a)utoj used for a
possessive pronoun—“will not his uncircumcision.” The verb is the future active
indicative of logizomai, which means to
reckon, to calculate, to credit, to be considered, to be regarded, to be
thought. Here it is translated to “be regarded” or to “be evaluated.” The
future tense is a deliberative future for a question of uncertainty expressed
in the future active. Here it is a rhetorical question taking the place of a
direct assertion, it is used actually as a nuance of debater’s technique. The
passive voice: the subject, the uncircumcised Gentile, receives the action of
the verb. The indicative mood is interrogative for a rhetorical question. Then
the preposition e)ij plus the
accusative of peritomh—“as
circumcision.” It is translated, “will not his uncircumcision be evaluated as
circumcision?” And then, because of o)uk, the answer is,
“Yes, it will.”
Translation: “If therefore the uncircumcised Gentile
observes the righteous requirements from the law, will not his uncircumcision
be evaluated as circumcision? Yes, it will.”
Principle: While ritual cannot be counted for reality,
reality can be counted for ritual. (Ritual is for ‘weak sisters’ to bring them
up to the strong ones. The strong ones never need ritual to lean on because
they have the reality in doctrine)
Verse 27 – “And shall not uncircumcision which is by
nature.” The intensive use of kai,
as
here, is never translated “and.” The connective use of kai means “and,” the adjunctive
use of kai means “also,”
the ascensive use of kai means “even,”
the intensive use of kai means “in fact.”
The subject a)krobustia in the nominative
singular refers, again, to uncircumcision. There is a definite article to
denote its previous reference in the context. Then the preposition e)k with the ablative of fusij which means nature or
natural endowment. The ablative of means is used here, it is not the regular
case for means but when the source is implied then the ablative is used for
means. “In fact, the uncircumcised Gentile by nature.” But that is literal and
does not bring out the idiom which is brought out by a better translation: “In fact,
the physically uncircumcised Gentile.” This is a reference to the Gentile who
was outside of the priest nation Israel, without the ritual of circumcision,
without the doctrine of the Mosaic law.
“if it fulfil the law” – the present active participle
from telew. “It” is going
to be “he.” The masculine is always used to refer to both masculine and
feminine gender in a principle, and so we say, “If he accomplishes the
purpose.” The present tense is a futuristic present, it denotes an event which
has not yet occurred but is regarded as so certain in thought that the tense
regards it as already coming to pass. The active voice: a Gentile minus
circumcision fulfils the action of the verb by accomplishing the purpose of the
law in adjusting to the justice of God. This is a conditional participle and it
is used as the protasis of a conditional sentence. Also, the accusative
singular from nomoj is used as the
object of the participle. “In fact, if he accomplishes the purpose of the law.”
“judge thee” – future active indicative of the verb krinw, meaning to judge. The
future tense is a gnomic future for a statement of fact or performance which
may be rightfully expected under normal conditions. The active voice: Gentiles
who have believed in Christ, who after salvation have used the rebound technique,
who have GAPed it all the way to maturity, produce the action of the verb. They
do so without benefit of the ritual and the perfect spiritual heritage of the
law. The indicative mood is an interrogative indicative indicating a rhetorical
question, which becomes a nuance for a dogmatic statement of fact disguised as
a rhetorical question. Plus the accusative singular direct object of su. The accusative as a direct
object means “you”—the Jew who has rejected Christ, you as a Jew who is
depending upon the ritual of circumcision and keeping the law for salvation.
God has rejected both as far as adjustment to his justice.
“who by letter and circumcision” – the accusative
singular definite article used as a relative pronoun whose antecedent is the
Jew, maladjusted to the justice of God. We have a preposition dia plus the genitive singular
of gramma, used for a
letter in the alphabet. The Mosaic law is a lot of letters in the Hebrew
alphabet put together to have meaning, but the person who rejects Christ as
saviour—the Jew who has the law—the law to him is nothing more than a lot of
letters in the alphabet put together in words he doesn’t understand. In other
words, you can never understand God until you make that first adjustment, until
you have the righteousness of God. Plus the genitive singular of peritomh which completes
the prepositional phrase.
“dost transgress the law?” – includes the adverbial
accusative of measure or the accusative of the extent of time from parabathj which means to
violate or transgress.
Translation: “In fact, if he accomplishes the purpose of
the law, will not the physically uncircumcised Gentile judge you Jews, who
through the letter [written page] and circumcision are a transgressor of the law?”
Principle
1. Instead of the
legalistic Jew who spends all of his time judging the Gentile, the
grace-oriented Gentile will judge the legalistic Jew. The integrity of God
reverses the procedure. The Jews keeping the law are looking down their nose at
the Gentiles, but in reality the Gentiles will judge those Jews. (So with us in
the matter of gossiping)
2. Because of
self-righteousness the legalistic Jew who has no right to judge, judges the
Gentile for not being circumcised and not keeping the law.
3. But the
Gentile who is not circumcised, who does not keep the law, but who has adjusted
to the justice of God--at salvation, through rebound, by maturity—will in turn
do the judging.
4. Therefore it
is the mature Gentile believer who has the right to judge the arrogant,
self-righteous, maladjusted Jew.
5. The mature
Gentile believer has made all three adjustments to the justice of God,
therefore he will have the right of judging.
Verse 28 – “For he is not a Jew.” The word “for” is the
postpositive conjunctive particle gar, and since it is
postpositive it is the second word. The first word in the sentence is o)uk, which is the negative, and
we translate this “Consequently, not.” The gar is used in an inferential sense for a self-evident
conclusion. Also in the first part of the verse, the present active indicative
of e)imi, the verb to be.
The descriptive present tense plus the negative indicates what is not now going
on. The categories described here are Jew by race and Jew by nationality, but
not Jew in the true sense of the word. The active voice: the racial Jew
produces the action of the verb by not being a true Jew. The indicative mood is
declarative, and plus the negative it represents the verbal idea from the
viewpoint of negative reality.
“which is one outwardly” – the nominative masculine
singular definite article used for a relative pronoun. Then the preposition e)n plus the instrumental of faneroj, an adjective
meaning visible, clear, evident, overt manifestation. The prepositional phrase
is translated as an adverb—“outwardly.” Many of the Jews of Paul’s time had
assumed that they had a relationship with God on the basis of their own
spiritual heritage distorted. The false Jew is keeping the law for salvation,
he is observing the ritual of circumcision for salvation. Keeping the law, the
overt manifestation, is the issue with the false Jew.
We have to fill in with some English words here to make a
good English sentence. There is no exact Greek equivalent, except the syntax.
“Consequently, he is not a Jew by overt manifestation.” Bu overt manifestation
we include the ritual of circumcision as well as keeping the Mosaic law.
“neither” – the negative conjunction o)ude which joins two negative
clauses; “is circumcision” – we have to translate this “that category which is
by overt manifestation” – e)n plus sarc, “in flesh” or “by overt
manifestation.”
Translation: “Consequently, he is not a Jew who is one by
overt manifestation; neither is circumcision that category which is external by
overt manifestation.”
This is saying
1. Keeping the
law in terms of legalism for adjustment to the justice of God—which is the
practice of Judaism—is not the true reason or purpose for the Jewish race.
2. By placing a
distorted emphasis on circumcision as a ritual, and keeping the law for
salvation, the racial Jew lost the true meaning and purpose for Israel as
custodians of doctrine, as a priest nation designed to make three adjustments
to the justice of God in time.
3. Therefore
there emerges historically a false Jew. Physically he has the genes of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, but spiritually he does not follow the adjustments to the
justice of God made by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
4. The false Jew
is both racially and nationally a Jew, but spiritually he is maladjusted to the
justice of God through the externals and superficialities of Judaism.
5. Ritual does
not save, does not provide salvation adjustment to the justice of God. Ritual
always portrays some aspect of the integrity of God, but no one has ever been
saved by any ritual.
6. Therefore
circumcision was a ritual but doctrine resident in Abraham’s soul was the
reality. The issue is doctrine in the soul, not the ritual of circumcision; the
issue is doctrine in the soul, not the ritual of baptism.
7. No one can be
a true Jew in the spiritual connotation without the reality of all three
adjustments to the justice of God.
The false Jew had no relation to the integrity of God,
and no greater demonstration of this than that which we have on Palm Sunday.
Palm Sunday occurred exactly one week before the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the first Palm Sunday was the greatest tragedy in history; it led
to the downfall of the nation. The Jews on that Palm Sunday took the attitude
that the whole purpose of everything was to get political reform. They wanted
political reform and they knew that Jesus could provide it. He could provide
the reform necessary to break the yoke of Rome—which was really protecting
them—and to make it possible for them to use their authority for tyranny. In
the name of political reform the politicians, who were the members of the
Sanhedrin, and the people of the land were now turning to Jesus because they
wanted Him to reform the nation. But what they failed to realise was that political
reform minus the integrity of God is useless, meaningless, and merely
accelerates disaster. That was the great issue in the first Palm Sunday. When
the integrity of God is not involved there is no such thing as permanent
political reform.
Verse 29 – the true Jew. “But” is the adversative
conjunction a)lla which sets up a
contrast between the true and the false Jew. Both are Jews racially and both
are Jews nationally, but the spiritual factor divides the true from the false
Jew.
“he is a Jew” – the repetition of I)oudaioj e)stin plus the present
active indicative of e)imi. This is
elliptical in its construction and the subject and the predicate must be
repeated. The present tense of e)imi is retroactive
progressive present, something that happens in the past and goes on into
present time. It has strong linear aktionsart and therefore could be translated
“he keeps on being a Jew.”
“which is one inwardly” – nominative masculine singular
from the definite article, used as a relative pronoun, who antecedent is I)oudaioj. There is a
prepositional phrase e)n plus the
instrumental of kruptoj, and it means
literally, “by a hidden.” It is referring to birth, a hidden birth. Literally
then, “But he is a Jew who is one by a hidden birth [regeneration].”
Principle
1. Regeneration
or the hidden birth is the point of salvation adjustment to the justice of God.
Regeneration converts a false Jew into a true Jew.
2. Salvation
adjustment to the justice of God demands non-meritorious faith in Jesus Christ,
not keeping the law and producing self-righteousness.
3. Self-righteousness is no substitute for God’s
righteousness.
4. God’s
righteousness is only imputed through faith in Christ and not by keeping the
law.
5. To understand
this statement you have to comprehend divine integrity or holiness composed of
His righteousness and justice.
6. One must
further understand that man’s relationship with God is based on justice, not on
His love.
7. Adjustment to
the justice of God is the hidden birth which occurs at the point of faith in
Christ.
8. It was this
hidden birth or regeneration which caused the distinction between the twins,
Esau and Jacob.
9. Two anthropopathisms are applied to Jacob and
Esau—Romans 9:13.
“and circumcision is that of the heart” – the continuative
use of the conjunction kai, plus the
nominative singular from the noun peritomh. “Circumcision
of heart” means maximum doctrine resident in the soul. The only way the
believer can have blessing and total relationship in glorifying God is by
maximum doctrine in the soul. Circumcision of the heart is simply maximum
adjustment to the justice of God. Circumcision is a ritual and all ritual is
comparable to doctrine—it always represents some doctrine. If the ritual is the
Lord’s table it represents adjustment to the justice of God, the work of Christ
on the cross, the first advent. If the ritual is circumcision it represents
maximum adjustment to the justice of God or cracking the maturity barrier. By
the way, circumcision always removes unnecessary skin, and that skin is the
removal of evil. Evil, remember, is not the same as sin, evil is the Satanic
policy of thought—bleeding heart do-goodism, liberalism, etc.
“in the spirit” – e)n plus the instrumental of pneuma should be
translated “by the Spirit.” The absence of the definite article gives great
quality to the noun. This is a reference to the Holy Spirit who regenerates
those who make instant adjustment to the justice of God, those who believe in
Christ. So this refers to the first adjustment to the justice of God.
“not in the letter” – o)u, the strong negative, plus the instrumental of gramma which refers to
the letter on the written page, i.e. the Mosaic law, “not by the letter.”
Principle
1. God the Holy
Spirit is the agent of regeneration, not the letter, not the law. The Mosaic
law is not an instrument of salvation; the Holy Spirit is the instrument of
salvation.
2. The Holy
Spirit regenerates those who make instant adjustment to the justice of God by
faith in Jesus Christ, not those who try to manufacture a system of doing good.
3. Regeneration
is the difference between the true and the false Jew.
“whose praise is not of men, but of God” – the possessive
genitive singular from the relative pronoun o(j. The antecedent is being a true Jew who has
adjusted to the justice of God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Then the
nominative singular subject e)painoj, translated
“praise.” It means praise, approval, or recognition, but it is a lot stronger
than that. The word began to have a connotation in the Greek language and by
the time of Stoicism it had the connotation of man being free from a judgment.
In other words, judgment could not judge him, he was in the right, not in the
wrong. In Romans 2:29 and 1 Corinthians 4:5 there is this connotation. Praise
or e)painoj is a technical
word for adjustment to the justice of God. Therefore we translate, not “whose
praise” but “whose approval from the justice of God is not from mankind, but
from God”—e)k plus the
ablative of source qeoj.
Translation: “For he is a Jew who is one by hidden birth
[regeneration]; and circumcision is that category of heart, by the Spirit [HS,
the teacher of doctrine], not by the letter [Mosaic law]; whose approval from
the justice of God is not from man, but is from God.”
[1] See the Doctrine of the scar tissue of the soul.
[2] See the Doctrine of the Hardening process.
[3] See the Doctrine of the Heart.
[4] See the Doctrine of the Last Judgment.
[5] See the Doctrine of the Mosaic law.
[6] See the Doctrine of the Conscience.
[7] See the Doctrine of the Client nation.
[8] See the Doctrine of Circumcision.