“What advantage then hath the Jew?
Outline
The stability of the integrity of God, 3:1-8.
The integrity of God rejects sinful mankind, 3:9-20.
The dikaiosunh of divine integrity, 3:21-26.
The results of divine integrity, 3:27-31.
The seven postulates of divine integrity (Three personal; four national)
1. There are no advantages to the advantages without the advantage. Advantages plural: blessings from the justice of God; advantage singular: the integrity of God, His righteousness and His justice.
2. If you have the advantage you have the advantages – blessings from the integrity of God.
3. Without the
advantage there are no advantages.
4. No nation can
have the advantages (divine blessings) without the advantage (divine integrity)
5. A nation without the advantage loses the advantages.
6. No nation can
recover its advantages without the advantage.
7. Loss of both advantage and advantages removes that nation from history – 5th cycle of discipline.
Question #1, “What advantage then hath the Jew?” It begins with the interrogative
pronoun nominative neuter singular tij, used to introduce a historical question regarding the Jews. Does the Jew have any advantage? Yes, he does have some advantages; No he has no advantage at all. Yes, as long as he is related to the integrity of God—God’s righteousness and justice. But no when he divorces himself from the integrity of God and is, in other words, maladjusted to the justice of God. The spiritual heritage of Israel was always related to the integrity of God, and when the Jews broke with the integrity of God at any point by the abuse of the ritual of circumcision or by the false implications of the Mosaic law—keeping it for salvation, a superficial approach in developing self-righteousness—they divorced themselves from the integrity of God. So they had not advantage, and yet they have every advantage in the world because were it not for the Jew none of us would be able to understand the integrity of God today. The impartiality of divine justice does not give the Jew with the law any advantage over the Gentile without the law. Since the justice of God is impartial in dealing with Jew and Gentile the question arises: What advantage does the Jew have over the Gentile, if any?
Next is an inferential particle o)un, it denotes an inference
from the preceding paragraph. The inference is that while the Jews have the
greatest spiritual
Heritage in history, racially and nationally, at the same time, because
God has integrity it doesn’t give them an advantage over any Gentile—without
the law, without that spiritual heritage. Why? Because the Jews were used by
God to point to the integrity of God, but because they are human like the rest
of us they can make the same mistake of maladjustment to the justice of God and
lose out, or they can have the same blessings by adjustment to the justice of
God. Everything brings us back to the same point, and the same point is this:
the only thing that counts is the integrity of God and the only way of blessing
is the verbalisation of the integrity of God, which is Bible doctrine resident
in the soul. So we have “What therefore.”
Next is a predicate
adjective nominative singular neuter from perissoj. It means extraordinary, more than usual, more than
sufficient. “Advantage” is not a bad translation. The adjective, however, is
used as a substantive and that is why it is translated “advantage.” But a
better modern translation would be “pre-eminence.” Then comes a descriptive
genitive of I)oudaioj, referring to
the racial Jew and the national Jew of Israel. “What therefore is the
pre-eminence of the Jew?”
1. The exclusion of man’s self-righteousness
through the function of divine integrity has caused some Jews to be deflated.
(There were Jews who had now read the first two chapters of Romans and had been
deflated by them)
2. Because Paul has done such a great job in
the second chapter they can see no advantage in possessing the Mosaic law. Why
have it?
3. The maladjusted Jews in reversionism were
blinded to the spiritual role of the racial Jew and the nation Israel in
history. Their maladjustment blinded them, and it does today.
4. Paul has demonstrated that the Jews are
just as spiritually dead as the Gentiles.
5. The justice of God has condemned the Jew
with the law just as He has condemned the Gentile without the law.
6. Prior to hearing Paul’s answer to this
question we have to examine certain pertinent doctrines which give us a
background for answering the question.
The doctrine of
Israel’s pre-eminence
The pre-eminence of
the Jew is related to certain principles that are developed in the Word of God.
The first has to do with the racial uniqueness of the Jew. There were initially
three post-diluvian races in our history. The Semitic race was eventually split
and became two races, so that a fourth was developed which was the Jewish race.
So we could say that all four post-diluvian races began with those persons who
had adjusted to the justice of God at salvation. Shem, Ham, and Japheth were
believers, that’s why they went aboard the Ark. Later on, Abraham was not only
a believer but mature adjustment as well. All four post-diluvian races, then,
began with born-again believers—Shem, Ham, Japheth, Abraham. However the Jews
started as a race, not just from salvation adjustment to the justice of God but
maximum adjustment to the justice of God. This gives the racial heritage of the
Jew pre-eminence over all the other races. Shem, Ham and Japheth were all born
again, but outside of Shem they didn’t appear to advance too much in the
spiritual life. However the fourth race started with someone who made all three
temporal adjustments to the justice of God and will, of course, enjoy for all
eternity the fourth adjustment as well. The Jewish race began with maximum adjustment
to the justice of God and therefore it has a unique spiritual heritage. The
means by which the race came into existence is totally unique. So the advantage
of the Jew is first of all a racial pre-eminence.
Secondly, there is the
unique nation of Israel. The unique origin and purpose of national Israel gives
re-eminence to the Jew. It is interesting to see how many great nations in
history have arisen out of slavery. Slavery is always a test for the people
involved to see if they have anything or not. Those who come out of slavery, as
inevitably all people do, when they are free do they simply hold their hand out
and say they want you to be nice to them now and be sorry for us and help us
out? Or do they form a nation? The Jews formed a nation. Israel was designed to
be a priest nation. The custodianship of written doctrine and revelation was to
belong to it. The authorship of the various books of the Old Testament, and
later the New Testament, would be in their hand. They were responsible for
evangelism at home and missionary activity abroad. They had all of the
responsibilities that belong to anyone under the concept of the priest nation.
They were the original post-diluvian priest nation. All the human authors of
scripture, with two exceptions in the New Testament, were Jews. So not only did
they have a unique foundation as a race, or origin as a race, and a unique
foundation as a nation, but at the same time their spiritual heritage was
perpetuated at both points through the great ultra-super-grace leadership of
Abraham and Moses. So we see again pre-eminence related to Israel. The humanity
of the Lord Jesus Christ was Jewish—not simply Jewish but royal family of
Israel. Jesus Christ is the Son of David and is the means of perpetuating the
Davidic covenant.
A third factor in what
is the pre-eminence of Israel is the unique covenants. The integrity of God has
made promises to the Jews that have never been made to anyone else—the
unconditional covenants. The doctrine of the pre-eminence of Israel is proclaimed
in various parts of the Abrahamic covenant—Genesis 12:1-3; 13:15,16; 22:15-18;
26:3,4; Exodus 6:2-8. The Abrahamic covenant declares the uniqueness of Israel.
Never in all of history, apart from those unconditional promises to Abraham,
did God ever promise to a race, and then to a nation, a piece of real estate on
this earth both now, in the Millennium, and for all eternity. That means they
are pre-eminent, unique. If Israel is going to exist as a nation forever the
question arises as to what type of government they should have. The answer to
that is very simple. From the divine viewpoint there is only one efficient
government, and whether we call it an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship it
makes not difference, because the best form of government has one genius, one
person with great integrity at the top. All of the authority is vested in one
person. That is the form of government that Israel will have throughout the
Millennium and forever—an absolute monarchy with the Lord Jesus Christ as the
ruler. Then we will have the fulfilment of 2 Samuel 7:8-16; Psalm 89:20-37. The
pre-eminence of Israel is based upon having four unconditional covenants, and
all of these form a tremendous principle: No nation under heaven in all of
human history has ever had God’s integrity involved totally in the nation as
has Israel.
The fourth point of pre-eminence is the unique discipline and
restoration of Israel. The pre-eminence of Israel is related to the fact that
even though severely punished four times under the 5th cycle of
discipline they will be regathered and restored at the second advent. No nation
has ever had the 5th cycle of discipline and still come back to be a
nation again—only Israel. That is unique. Three times they have been a
nation—the united kingdom, the divided kingdom [Ephraim in the north and Judah
in the south], then Judea. The present Jewish nation is not a client nation.
The fifth point of
pre-eminence is the survival of the Jew under constant conditions of
anti-Semitism. They have survived, and will survive, under the most
concentrated of all Satanic attacks. Cf. Revelation 13.
The sixth point of
uniqueness is the Millennial Israel. The pre-eminence of Israel is related to
the glorified status in the Millennium. Israel will be unique among
nations—Zechariah 14:16-21.
The seventh principle
is the principle of the priest nation. Four times throughout history Israel
will be a priest nation.[1]
1.
There is a salvation advantage. There is no advantage in being an
outward Jew—Romans 2:28—unless one is an onward Jew of Romans 2:29. The
advantage comes in adjusting to the justice of God at salvation. There is no
advantage in being a Jew by race or a Jew nationally. It is the spiritual
heritage of Israel that gives the advantage. There are no advantages in life
for anyone unless they are related to the integrity of God.
2.
The doctrinal advantage. The Jews have been recipients of both written
and oral revelation from God—Romans 3:2. The Jews as a priest nation were the
custodians of the canon of scripture. Hence, there was opportunity for all
adjustments. All doctrine resided in Israel.
3.
The dispensational advantage. In the dispensation of Israel the Jew had
the whole realm of doctrine—except mystery doctrine of the Church Age. He had
the unconditional covenants and the establishment principles delineated by the
Mosaic law. In the dispensation of the Church the Jew becomes royal family of
God through salvation adjustment to the justice of God, just as the Gentile
does. In the dispensation of the Millennium the Jew has maximum benefit from
the fulfilment of the unconditional covenants, and the Jew and Israel will be
the priest nation throughout the Millennium and forever. They will have the
advantage of the greatest government administration in all of history, Jesus
Christ will rule as absolute dictator for one thousand years and then forever.
4.
The establishment advantage. Every nation has the advantage when it has
establishment. The Mosaic law not only defined freedom but it set up a
constitution for national government which included principles of
establishment. The Jews always benefited from the observation of establishment
doctrines under the Mosaic law.
5.
The cultural advantage. The cultural concepts related to doctrine in
the Mosaic law preserved the nation from evil when observed.
6.
The priest nation advantage.
“or what profit is there in circumcision?” We
now have a disjunctive particle h) which
separates from the first and the second question. The masculine
nominative singular from the interrogative pronoun tij introduces the second question. The predicate
nominative singular from the noun w)feleia which means
advantage or profit or benefit. Plus the ablative singular of source peritomh—“or what is the
benefit from circumcision?” We have the verb to be because of the presence of
the predicate nominative. It isn’t stated but Paul can be elliptical and leave
out words. In the syntax of the Greek these words are actually included through
syntax. The fact that we have a nominative subject and a predicate nominative
demands that we put the verb to be in.
1.
The ritual of circumcision is related to maximum adjustment to the
justice of God.
2.
To understand the doctrinal significance of the ritual was beneficial
as a challenge to advance to spiritual maturity through the daily function of
GAP. So to have a ritual which teaches the advantage is an advantage.
3.
Such advance to maturity is maximum adjustment to the justice of God
and the sharing of the integrity of God.
4.
Such adjustment to the justice of God means blessing from divine
justice in time, as well as in eternity.
5.
By blessing in eternity is meant blessing over and above ultimate
sanctification, which is for every believer.
Translation: “What therefore is the pre-eminence
of the Jew? or what is the benefit from circumcision?”
The answer to this question is found in the next verse. It is in
maximum adjustment to the justice of God. Since we always deal with the justice
of God we must understand both His essence and His integrity. Doctrine is the
key to this understanding.
Verse 2 – the answer
emphasises the importance of Bible doctrine. “Much every way” – the nominative
neuter singular from the adjective poluj. It is correctly
translated “much.” Next is the prepositional phrase kata plus the accusative singular of the adjective paj and the noun tropoj. Kata = according to, against,
but it comes “in” because it is a preposition of dispersion. If many things are
coming from the same source, then you can use “in” instead of “according to.”
In other words, the source is the integrity of God and all of these are
different blessings, the advantages that come from the integrity of God. So kata plus the accusative is
correctly translated here “in every way.”
“chiefly because that
unto them” – the adverb prwton is translated
“chiefly”in the KJV, but it doesn’t mean that at all. It means “in the first
place” when you put it with the affirmative particle men. The affirmative particle
changes the meaning from chiefly to in the first place. Then an explanatory
use of the postpositive conjunctive particle gar—“for in the first place.” Next is a causal
conjunction o(ti. Sometimes this
is used for quotation marks and isn’t translated at all. Sometimes it is used
to indicate the content of thinking or concluding. But here it has a causal
connotation and translated “since.” The words “unto them” are not found in the
original.
“were committed” – the
aorist passive indicative of the verb pisteuw, which ordinarily means to believe, but basically
behind it, it means to be convinced of something, to trust. Here it means to
entrust something to someone. God has entrusted to Israel, not the Jew. The Jew
is a race, and the race became a nation before there was a trust committed to
them—not in Abraham’s day but in Moses’ day. In Moses’ day there was given to
them doctrine. The first writer of doctrine was Moses. The written canon of
scripture, doctrine in writing so that from this writing men could study and
communicate doctrine to others. The aorist tense is a gnomic aorist for an
axiomatic truth. The passive voice: the nation Israel received the action of
the verb. The indicative mood is declarative for a historical fact: Israel
became the first priest nation in history.
“the oracles of God” –
accusative plural direct object from logion which means
divine communication or revelation, and here it refers to Bible doctrine. The
definite article is used to indicate something with which the readers are
familiar. Plus the ablative singular of source from qeoj. Remember that the ablative is not the ordinary
source of source, but it is the source of source when the source is absolute.
Translation: “Much in
every way: for in the first place since they [Israel] were entrusted with the
doctrines from God.”
This is a reference to the Old Testament
canon. Bible doctrine is the basis of adjustment to the justice of God in
relationship with then integrity of God. Doctrine, therefore, is the basis for
both personal and national prosperity. The recipients of written doctrine gave
Israel the privilege of being the first priest nation. A smoother translation:
“Much in every way: for since in the first place they [Israel] were entrusted
with the doctrines from God.” Since the benefit is Bible doctrine this answer
focuses attention on Israel’s past, present and future. In the past, as a
result of Abraham’s maximum adjustment to the justice of God he became the
father of the fourth race. In the past the Jews had the glory of being a
uniquely developed race. It started with the spiritual maturity of Abraham at
age 99. At the Exodus Moses became the father of the Jewish nation, just as
previously Abraham had become the father of the Jewish race. The Jews then
formed a priest nation which became the custodian of written revelation from
God, the Old Testament scriptures.[2]
Verse 3 – maladjustment. “For what” – the
explanatory use of the postpositive conjunctive particle gar, plus the interrogative
pronoun nominative neuter singular from tij. The the two words, ti gar, are literally “For what,” but this is an idiom. In
the Koine Greek this idiom means, “Well then, how stands the case with regard
to the alternatives?” In the Attic Greek the idiom adds a classical disjunctive
interrogative particle, pwteroj. The Classical
Greek uses this with the interrogative pronoun tij means “which of two.” And pwteroj is added here,
just like in Classical Greek. Pwteroj disappeared in
the Koine Greek because of the decadence of the duel which led to the
substitution of the postpositive particle gar. The Classical Greek had Ti pwteroj, but the Koine
Greek was a common language and merely used Ti gar. But it means exactly the same as Ti pwteroj. So Ti gar introduces
alternative possibilities regarding the integrity of God, or simply alternatives
here regarding the justice of God. “How stands the case with regard to the
alternatives re. the justice of God.”
1. Only through adjustment to the justice of
God can the Jew be benefited. The idiom, ti gar, introduces the problem of maladjustment to the
justice of God in the form of a conditional sentence.
2. The conditional sentence is composed of a
protasis and an apodosis.
3. The protasis is the suppositional clause [“if”] while the statement based on the supposition is called apodosis.
4. In this verse we have a first class
condition, or a supposition from the viewpoint of reality.
5. This condition is used when one wishes to
assume the reality of his premise.
6. The protasis is introduced by the
conditional conjunction e)i, plus any mood
or tense.
We have the protasis
of a first class condition, “if some did not believe,” starting with the
conditional particle e)i
used
to introduce a first class condition. With it is the nominative masculine
plural of the indefinite enclitic pronoun tij (no accent), used to define a category, namely Jews
who are maladjusted to the justice of God by rejection of the gospel—“if
certain ones.” (An indefinite pronoun in the Greek always refers to something
definite) Plus the aorist active indicative of the verb a)pistew [a = negative; pisteuw = to believe]
which means not to believe. It really means to refuse to believe and it refers
to someone who understands the issue and says no, to disbelieve or to refuse to
believe. The aorist tense is a constative aorist, it contemplates the action of
the verb in its entirety. It gathers into a single entirety every Jewish
maladjustment to the justice of God from the beginning of the race, down
through the nation, including all of the people who have rejected Christ right
down to the time Paul wrote. The active voice: the Jewish unbeliever produces
the action of the verb by rejecting Christ as saviour. As we have seen, this
destroys the advantage of being a Jew. All the advantages of being a Jew are
related to the integrity of God and therefore the justice of God. The
indicative mood is declarative viewing the action of the verb from the
viewpoint of historical reality.
Now the apodosis:
“shall their unbelief” – the particle of unqualified negation mh is at the beginning of the
question. The apodosis is a question. In questions where you have the negative mh it implies the answer of
no. If the question begins with the negative o)uk the answer is yes. The nominative singular subject a)pistia means
“unbelief,” maladjustment to the justice of God at salvation, rejection of
Christ at the point of gospel hearing. Plus the possessive genitive plural from
the intensive pronoun a)utoj used as a
possessive pronoun to indicate that each Jew was responsible for his own rejection
of Christ, so that the magnificent spiritual heritage of his past was no help
to him.
“make the faith of God
without effect?” – future active indicative of the verb katargew which means to
abrogate, to render null and void, cancel. It has to be translated “shall
cancel.” This is a deliberative future tense, it deals with questions of
uncertainty, however such questions are merely rhetorical to communicate
doctrine in place of a direct assertion. Since the question begins with the
negative mh it is a
rhetorical question with a preconceived answer, but it is put in the form of a
question again to replace direct assertion. The active voice: the unbelieving
Jew produces the action of the verb through maladjustment to the justice of God
at the point of gospel hearing. This is an interrogative indicative in which
the viewpoint reality is implied in the fact of the question. The cancellation
is a reality in the mind of the hearer and not in the mind of the communicator.
That is what the interrogative indicative means. There is also an accusative
singular direct object from pistij. While pistij means “faith” we
are going to see pistij has other
meanings. To anticipate, there are three basic meanings to this noun. The
active voice meaning is trust, confidence, faith. There is a passive sense in
which pistij means doctrine
or what is believed, the body of faith. There is a third connotation of the
noun: that which causes faith, and it is translated under this condition,
“reliability” or “faithfulness.” Here pistij has a definite article to indicate that the word
and its meaning in context is familiar to those who hear, those who read. The
word means here, “integrity” or “faithfulness.” It is worded, “shall their lack
of faith [rejection of Christ] cancel the integrity of God? No.”
Translation: “Well
then how stands the case with regard to the alternatives? If certain ones [the
Jews] refuse to believe [and they do], shall their lack of faith cancel the
integrity of God? No.”
1. The failure of certain ones in the human
race to respond to the gospel and to believe in Jesus Christ never abrogates or
cancels the integrity of God. God’s integrity cannot be cancelled by man’s
unfaithfulness. And that means not only unfaithfulness at salvation, that means
unfaithfulness in the function of GAP.
2. This is why it is so important to
distinguish between the integrity of God, to which we must relate, and that
anthropopathism called the love of God to which we must not relate.
3. The entire question is based on the fact
that many were confusing the anthropopathism of love with the integrity of God,
as well as the true love of God as a divine attribute.
4. Human love, when rejected, cancels or
abrogates the rejector; but do not superimpose human love, frustrated love, or
rejected love on God. God never changes.
5. Because human beings cancel their
faithfulness when rejected in love does not imply that God cancels out his
faithfulness or His integrity.
6. We do not deal with or relate to God on
the basis of anthropopathisms. There are many anthropopathisms in scripture and
they teach principles, they are important at a certain stage of our spiritual
growth, but you can’t overwork and anthropopathism.
Verse 4 – “God forbid,” mh genoito. The negative mh simply matches up the
negative mh used in the
question of the previous verse. When the negative mh is used with a question the answer to the question
is no. Here in this verse we have the qualified negative mh and the aorist active
optative of ginomai. Translating literally
is all right when the language is literal, but the Greeks learned abstract
thought very early in their function and from the 5th century on
abstract thought was quite common. The greater the mass of abstract thought the
greater becomes the idiom, and therefore to correctly translate is the
objective. To literally translate “Let it not be so” is not effective. This
means that we are dealing with another idiom. To understand the idiom we have
to go to the negative mh with the
optative mood. The aorist tense of ginomai is a gnomic
aorist for the certainty of a strong negation. The active voice: a rhetorical
question produces the action of the verb. This particular Greek idiom, by the
way, is a very strong negative and only Paul uses it. He uses it as a debater’s
idiom, gathering force for the next principle. The optative mood is called the
deliberative optative for an indirect rhetorical question. It is used here for
a doubtful attitude of mind on the part of the hearers. Paul knows it to be
absolute truth; they do not. The idiom can be used in several ways. “God
forbid” is the archaic idiom. “By no means” has been used but that is a little
on the weak side too. The best idiom is “Hell no!” We compromise a little with
“Emphatically not.” The strong negative indicates that God’s integrity and
faithfulness does not depend on the righteousness of man or the goodness of
man, or anything else that man can produce. God’s faithfulness depends on God’s
character and specifically His righteousness and justice—His integrity. The
faithfulness of God is always based upon the principle of grace, and under
grace everything depends on who and what God is. Therefore this strong negative
emphasises the integrity of God to which all believers are related in part, if
not en toto—in part at salvation; en toto at maturity.
“yea, let God be true,
but every man a liar” – the important thing is to emphasise who and what God
is, not who and what we are. This begins with the postpositive conjunctive
particle de, emphasising a
contrast after a strong negative. It is translated “rather.” Then the present
middle imperative of the verb ginomai, which means to
come to be, to become. It is used here as a substitute for e)imi when qeoj is the subject. God never
becomes anything; God always is. But He becomes something to us and so ginomai is a compromise
with e)imi because we have
to change our thinking about God as we learn doctrine. As we change our
thinking about God we then enter into the perspective of grace. Until we change
our thinking about God from cognisance of doctrine we never are oriented to
grace. This is how legalism comes in. If we emphasise self legalism enters. If
we emphasise the integrity of God we are grace oriented. The present tense here
is a static present representing a condition taken for granted as a fact. The
middle voice: because it relates the action of the verb more intimately to the
subject, stressing the subject as an agent, this is the indirect middle
emphasising God as producing the action of the verb as a part of His perfect
integrity. The imperative mood is often the mood of command, however it is also
the mood of entreaty or volition. We have here the imperative mood of entreaty
which does not convey the finality of a command but gives the urgency of a request,
recognising that you do have free will. Then comes the predicate nominative
singular from a)lhqhj, the real
connotation of which is “constant” or “valid.” It is used of an attribute of
God and refers here to two attributes, the integrity of God, His righteousness
and justice. It is used to describe here the judicial righteousness of God. So
here in this context a)lhqhj means
“trustworthy” or “reliable,” and is a reference to divine integrity.
“but every man a liar”
is not correct. The adversative use of the conjunctive particle de is translated “though.”
There is no “but” about it, it is a fact in contrast. It is s foregone fact
that God has all the monopoly on integrity, and we have none under the
principle of total depravity. “Every” is the nominative paj, the nominative singular.
We have a subject singular noun, a)nqrwpoj for man
generically and refers to all mankind. Therefore with paj, “every man” makes it
personal. The word for “liar” is yeusthj. This doesn’t
mean someone running around always telling lies, it means that all of us are
basically dishonest. This means that man is ignorant and in this case ignorance
becomes stupidity. God has total cognisance. Man’s understanding of God starts
out as total ignorance—because we are spiritually dead. This phrase does not
refer to telling lies, it is living in ignorance and therefore living in
falsehood. Ignorance becomes falsehood.
1. Rejection of Jesus Christ as saviour is
tantamount to blasphemy and is the antithesis of integrity, therefore some synonym
of being a liar—deceit, hypocrisy, etc.
2. But more than that, when they reject
Christ as saviour they reject e)pignwsij gospel they
definitely know what they have rejected because they have understood a little
bit of doctrine, enough to be saved. Rejection of the gospel is declaring God
to be a liar.
3. When an unbeliever understands the gospel,
if he exhales yes—faith in Christ, then he recognises the integrity of God, but
if he exhales no he says God is a liar. Every person who rejects Christ as saviour
in effect says God is a liar. So the issue: either God’s integrity is the
source of salvation or God is a liar.
4. The latter—God is a liar—is unthinkable
and blasphemous, totally incorrect.
“Emphatically not:
rather, let the God be proved reliable, though every man a liar.”
1. Lack of integrity in mankind does not cancel the integrity of God. Man superimposes his lack of integrity on God but the character or essence of God rejects it. The integrity of God is inviolable.
2. Even though every rejection of Christ
declares God to be a liar the integrity of God continues, regardless of the
blasphemy. An aside: God is never impressed with public opinion; only people
are impressed with public opinion, and Satan who solicits public opinion.
3. Salvation adjustment to the justice of God results in receiving the righteousness of God. One half of His integrity is the guarantee of eternal salvation. The great issue in salvation is the righteousness of God imputed, and/or justification. Logically, justification results from the imputation of the righteousness of God.
4. Salvation maladjustment to the justice of
God results in receiving judgment from the justice of God. Lack of having one
half of divine integrity is a guarantee of eternal as well as temporal
condemnation.
5. The justice of God which gives us His
righteousness at salvation, and later on blessing if we mature, is the source
of blessing or cursing.
6. The justice of God provides the
righteousness of God to anyone who will believe in Christ.
7. But the justice of
God provides judgment for anyone who rejects Christ as saviour.
8. Therefore, the integrity of God is
involved with both adjustment or maladjustment to the justice of God.
9. Adjustment to the justice of God resulting
in the imputation of divine righteousness is called justification.
10 Justification is the first blessing from
the integrity of God logically, says Romans. Chronologically these things are
simultaneous.
11. Maladjustment to the justice of God at
salvation is called condemnation. In other words, condemnation is cursing from
the justice of God.
12. Whether justification or condemnation the
integrity of God is maintained—by both blessing and cursing from His justice.
13. God’s integrity continues reliable, and
God’s faithfulness is consistent, whether he is using justification or
condemnation.
14. Whether blessing
or cursing the justice of God maintains the integrity of God.
“as it is written”
begins with an adverb, kaqaper, which
introduces a quotation from the Old Testament scriptures—Psalm 54:1; 116:11.
Plus the perfect passive indicative from
the verb grafw, meaning to
write. The perfect tense is the grammatic perfect or the rhetorical use of the
intensive perfect. The action is completed and the existing results are before
us in the fact that there is a completed Old Testament canon from which the
apostle Paul is quoting. The passive voice: the pertinent Old Testament
passages receive the action of the verb, i.e. quotation. The indicative mood is
declarative used for a dogmatic assertion of fact, i.e. a quotation from the OT
scriptures.
There is also a Greek
conjunction at this point, o(ti, used
pleonastically for redundancy and to quote someone else’s words. So in effect o(ti becomes a quotation mark
but not translated.
“that thou mightest be
justified” – the adverb o(pwj used as a
conjunction, and with it a conjunctive particle that is very unusual, a)n. It comes from the Attic
Greek, is always used with the aorist subjunctive to form a purpose clause.
Generally it is translated “in order that” or “for the purpose that.” The
particle a)n is actually
incapable of translation by a single English word. Its meaning depends upon the
meaning and tense of the verb with which it is used. Here it is used to
indicate a perfect clause. And this is not Koine Greek. Then the aorist passive
subjunctive of the verb dikaiow [dikh = righteousness, and the
adjective from which it is derived here is dikaioj]. The verbal form, dikaiow, means to make righteous, to establish as right, to
validate. In the Koine Greek it means to justify, to declare righteous, to
vindicate, to show justice, to do justice. Here it is used for vindication of
divine integrity, especially divine justice but not to exclude divine
righteousness. This amounts to an anthropopathism because God needs no
vindication at any time. This is a gnomic aorist, used for a fact that divine
integrity is axiomatic in quality and in character. So it is described in the
aorist as though it always existed and always will exist. The idiom is
translated by the English present tense. It is also a dramatic aorist. The
dramatic aorist states the reality of divine integrity with the certitude of a
past event, i.e. God has always been righteous and just, He always will be, He
cannot change. The passive voice: the essence of God with emphasis on divine
integrity receives the action of the verb. The subjunctive mood is used not so
much as the potential subjunctive but to introduce a purpose clause.
“in they sayings” –
the preposition e)n plus the
instrumental plural of cause or means, logoj. Logoj in the plural
means doctrines, and we have the instrumental of means, so it is “by means of
doctrines.” But it is specifically someone’s doctrines—the possessive genitive
singular from the intensive pronoun a)utoj, used to
emphasise the owner. The owner is God.
1. Since God is infinite, eternal, invisible,
and incomprehensible it is necessary for God to reveal Himself to mankind
through Bible doctrine.
2. The doctrines of the scripture vindicate
the integrity of God.
3. The integrity of God is demonstrated
through the perception of Bible doctrine. Hence, the importance of the daily
function of GAP.
4. Therefore it is through doctrine that we
adjust to the justice of God—only through doctrine.
5. First, doctrine pertinent to salvation—the
gospel. Then the whole realm of doctrine for the believer in Christ.
6. This is why maximum doctrine resident in the soul is maturity adjustment to the justice of God.
“and mightest
overcome” – the continuative use of the conjunctive particle kai which extends the divine
purpose through Bible doctrine to another point. There is a textual problem
here. Textus Receptus, which is unreliable in these things, has nikeseij. However, we
have a slightly different form in Vaticanus or Codex B which has nikhseij—two different
letters even though they are transliterated the same. In other words, which is
it? Is it the aorist active subjunctive from nikaw or is it the future active indicative of nikaw? Here we have the aorist
active subjunctive and this is where Vaticanus gives us the light on the
textual problem of Textus Receptus, the source of the translation of the King
James version. Not only was Textus Receptus a series of inferior texts but,
worse than that, it is now suffering from the problem of anachronism. Nikaw means to prevail, to
conquer, to overcome. In more modern English it is translated “that you might
prevail” or “be the victor.” The aorist tense is a culminative aorist, it views
the action in its entirety but regards it from the viewpoint of its results.
The active voice: the person and integrity of God produces the action. The
subjunctive mood is used to indicate the continuation of the purpose clause.
“That you might prevail” means that every time that the justice of God must
judge the justice of God is right.
“when thou art judged”
– the prepositional phrase is e)n plus the
locative of the definite article, with the infinitive to denote contemporaneous
time. The infinitive of time is equivalent to a temporal clause. This is a case
where you take the preposition “in” and make it when. The present passive
infinitive of krinw is the object of
the infinitive. The passive of krinw is often used of
judgment which people customarily pass upon the lives and actions of others, so
krinw has the
connotation, then, of slander or maligning. There is also the accusative
singular of general reference from the pronoun su, and from this we derive the fact—“when you are slandered,” su becomes the subject of the
infinitive. The personal pronoun refers to God—“when you are being slandered,”
literally. The present tense is a historical present in which a past event is
viewed with the vividness of a present occurrence. The passive voice: God, the
perfect judge, is criticised.
Translation:
“Emphatically not: rather, let the God be proved reliable, though every man a
liar; as it stands written, In order that you might be demonstrated just by
means of your doctrines, and that you might prevail when you are being
slandered.”
Verse 5 – “But if our
unrighteousness.” It begins with the postpositive conjunctive particle de used as a transitional
particle. It is designed to make a transition into one of the most common
attacks on the integrity of God. Plus the conditional particle e)i introducing the protasis of
a conditional clause in a conditional sentence, the first class condition which
is a supposition from the viewpoint of reality or, as in this case, assumed
reality. This is a debater’s first class condition. The nominative singular
subject a)dikia, translated
correctly “unrighteousness.” It means also wrongdoing, wickedness or injustice.
It means human injustice in contrast to God’s dikaiosunh, a word used for the integrity of God. In
the New Testament a)dikia means legal
injustice, partiality in judgment, man’s unrighteousness in contrast to the
righteousness of God. Here it means dishonesty, lack of integrity. Next is the
possessive genitive plural from the pronoun e)gw, indicating that in this context we are dealing with
the Jewish unbeliever. But remember that by application it could be any
born-again believer maladjusted to the justice of God at rebound, maladjusted
with regard to GAP, with regard to doctrine. So the Jewish unbeliever possesses
an unrighteousness or lack of integrity and therefore is maladjusted to the
integrity of God.
“commend” – present
active indicative of the verb sunisthmi, which means to
bring together, to unite, to demonstrate, to show, to recommend. Here it means
to demonstrate or promote. Paul uses the genitive plural to identify himself
with the Jewish unbeliever. Paul is not a Jewish unbeliever, this is a little
debater’s technique on his side. He simply assumes the position of the
self-righteous Jewish unbeliever in order to destroy that position. He sets up
a straw man and then knocks him over. The present tense is a perfective
present, it denotes the continuation of assumed existing results. It refers to
the assumption of the past but emphasises a present reality. The active voice:
the unbeliever Jew, who is very smart, assumes the action of the verb. This
assumption comes from his arrogant self-righteousness. The declarative
indicative mood is used to indicate this is a real but incorrect assumption. It
is a debater’s first class condition. The unbeliever Jew in his arrogant
self-righteousness is going to say that his unrighteousness or sinfulness
actually promotes or demonstrates the integrity of God. “But if our
unrighteousness demonstrates/promotes.”
“the righteousness of God” – dikaiosunh
qeou. The genitive singular of qeoj and the
nominative singular of dikaiosunh in the
accusative. The accusative is used as the direct object. Here it means one of
three things: either God’s righteousness, God’s justice, the combination of the
two, or justification (blessing from the justice of God).
1. It is blasphemous
to assume that human righteousness promotes divine integrity.
2. Divine integrity
has always existed in eternity past, long before their was any unrighteousness
in the human race.
3. Neither man’s
self-righteousness nor unrighteousness can add anything to the integrity of
God.
4. In fact, God’s
righteousness totally rejects man’s self-righteousness as well as man’s
sinfulness.
5. The self-righteous Jew uses debater’s
technique by implying that God would be wrong and unjust to judge or punish
anyone who was promoting His glory or integrity.
6. The self-righteous
Jewish unbeliever erroneously contends that his unrighteousness promotes the
righteousness and integrity of God.
7. Therefore the
self-righteous Jew concludes that God could not condemn him.
8. The righteousness
of God is His divine love for holiness or integrity.
9. Since holiness demands holiness, integrity
demands integrity, righteousness demands equivalent righteousness, justice
demands justice, God must condemn all members of the human race from His
perfect integrity.
10. God demands
integrity, i.e. imputed righteousness, plus maximum doctrine in the soul, and
condemns maladjustment to His justice.
11. This is why
adjustment to the justice of God is so important and the key to understanding
our great relationship with God.
12. God in grace
provides all that His integrity demands from the human race.
13. He provides
imputed righteousness at salvation. Then He provides doctrine after salvation.
14. At the cross God
judged our sins when Christ was bearing them – 1 Peter 2:24.
15. At the cross He
condemned our sins in Christ; after salvation He condemns lack of doctrine in
the soul. Ps. 85:10.
“what shall we say?” –
a debater’s rhetorical question. It includes the nominative neuter singular
from the interrogative pronoun tij, plus the future
active indicative from the verb legw. The future
tense is a deliberative future used for rhetorical questions taking the place
of a deliberate assertion. The future active indicative of this rhetorical
question is actually used seven times in the book of Romans, and in each case
Paul is using logic in connection with debater’s technique in order to refute a
false position—Romans 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30. The active voice of
the verb: Paul assumes the distortion of the self-righteous Jew as a part of
debater’s technique producing the action of the verb. This is the setting up of
a straw man through this idiom. The indicative mood is used here for a
debater’s rhetorical question. The phrase means literally, “what shall we say?”
But it is a Greek idiom in debater’s technique and it should be translated, “to
what conclusion are we forced?” Hence, we have the debater’s rhetorical
question designed to express a false conclusion and then destroy that false
conclusion. “What shall we say then?” is an incorrect translation of the idiom.
Now the false
conclusion is stated, and then refuted. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?”
This begins with the negative particle which is used when the question demands
a negative answer—mh. Then a
predicate nominative from the adjective a)dikoj which means “unrighteousness.” This is the basic
key to the false conclusion. The subject in the nominative is o( qeoj. Then an
articular present active participle from the verb e)piferw, which means to bring accusation, to inflict, and
with the accusative singular direct object of o)rgh it means to inflict wrathful punishment. There is
also a definite article with the participle acting as a relative pronoun. It
should be translated, “to what conclusion are we forced? Is the God who
inflicts wrathful punishment unrighteous? No.” The historical present tense of
the participle indicates a past event viewed with the vividness of a present
occurrence. In other words, Paul is extrapolating debater’s technique used in
the past against him and now brings it up to the present by inserting it at
this point to teach the concept of doctrine. The last judgment is in view also
here, so we have a futuristic present tense denoting an event which has not
occurred—the last judgment and the lake of fire. But it is regarded as so
certain that it is stated in the present tense as though it had already come to
pass. The active voice: God produces the action. This is a circumstantial
participle used in debater’s technique.
1. The negative mh indicates that is debater’s technique, that Paul
has assumed an erroneous position in order to refute that position. The
conclusion is unthinkable and blasphemous. It is impossible for the perfect
integrity of God to be unrighteous.
2. The holiness/integrity of God was intact
in eternity past before man was created and nothing can change it, nothing ever
will.
3. There is nothing man can do to destroy, to
neutralise, to cancel, to abrogate the integrity of God. There is nothing that
man can do to compromise the integrity of God.
4. Man’s unrighteousness does not glorify God
but God’s integrity condemns man’s unrighteousness.
5. There is no point in either angelic or human history where the integrity of God is compromised or gains anything from man’s unrighteousness or self-righteousness.
6. The debater’s first class condition
introduces the premise from which the false conclusion is made.
7.
When the premise is false the conclusion is false. The conclusion can be
no stronger than the premise.
8. No one establishes God’s righteousness, no
one adds anything to God’s integrity. This, by the way, is a fundamental
principle of grace and separates grace from legalism on many matters.
9. God can add to something to our integrity
but we cannot add anything to God’s integrity.
10. God’s righteousness is absolute and part
of His integrity. God’s righteousness, along with the rest of His integrity
which is justice, has always existed and is not subject to change or promotion
by man.
11. No one establishes the character and the
integrity of God. God’s essence or character stands without help from man or
angel.
12. In other words, God does not need our
help; we need His help.
13. We need the benefit of God’s integrity
which begins at the point of salvation adjustment to the justice of God.
14. Imputed righteousness is the beginning of
blessing from the justice of God.
15. Imputed righteousness is where God begins
to share His integrity with us.
“(I speak as a man)” –
this is an idiom. Kata plus the
accusative of a)nqrwpoj means “according
to man.” It is translated “according to man” or “according to the standards of
man.” The present active indicative of legw means “I am speaking.” This is a descriptive
present tense indicating what is now going on, the expression of self-righteous
human viewpoint. The active voice: Paul as a part of debater’s technique
assumes the attitude of the self-righteous unbeliever in order to refute that
position. The indicative mood is declarative for a simple statement of human
viewpoint. Paul assumes human viewpoint to refute it, the straw man principle.
Translation: “But if
our unrighteousness promotes the integrity of God [and we assume it does], to
what conclusion are we forced? The God who inflicts wrathful punishment is not
unrighteous, is he? No, of course not. I am presenting the human viewpoint.”
The issue: Is God who
inflicts wrathful judgment on the unbeliever unrighteous? Is divine integrity
compromised by judging man? Does the temporal and eternal judgment of the
unbeliever in any way compromise the attributes of God? The answer is no. On
the contrary, the function of divine justice in condemning the unbeliever
confirms and strengthens the integrity of God.
Verse 6 – lest some of
Paul’s hearers become nervous he makes a full denial of the false assertion. He
begins with mh
genoito, the strongest of the negative idioms: “Emphatically not.” The aorist
active optative of ginomai, the
deliberative optative, is used for a doubtful attitude of mind on the part of
the hearers, not the writer. By use of the optative of ginomai Paul is saying
that he is clear, he doesn’t have any problem, he is bringing this all up to
reflect the hearers’ thinking and to straighten it out.
“for then how” – an
idiom of suppressed condition, e)pei
pwj.
The best that can be done in translating this is “otherwise how.”
“shall God judge the
world?” – the nominative singular subject o( qeoj, and the nominative definite article because people
are familiar with God. It refers to Jesus Christ who is the presiding judge of
the supreme court of heaven and has been so appointed—John 5:22, 27. Then the
future active indicative of krinw, krinei. This is a
gnomic future, a statement of fact. The last judgment is anticipated as reality
under the gnomic future. The indicative mood is declarative for the reality of
the last judgment. Then an accusative singular direct object from kosmoj, the world which
God is going to judge.
Translation:
“Emphatically not. Otherwise if it were true how shall God judge the world?”
Verse 7 – “For if,”
the postpositive conjunctive particle de used to connect one clause with
another and to continue to use the debater’s technique, showing how ludicrous
is the thinking of man in this regard. It is translated “But.” Then the
conditional particle e)i used to
introduce a first class condition—“if and we assume it is true.” It introduces
the protasis of a first class condition, supposition from the viewpoint of
reality. Here is the first class condition used as debater’s technique. Paul
uses this premise in order to refute the premise. Paul assumes something to be
true in order to refute it. He states a premise of legalism. The straw man is
set up and is then knocked down. Under this first class condition Paul assumes
that doctrine or the truth of God is advanced by telling a lie. He assumes the
role of a liar to state his
rationalisation to those who are maladjusted to the justice of God, and man,
the liar, should not be condemned if he advances the justice of God.
“the truth of God” –
the word for truth is the nominative singular subject a)lhqeia. It is used for
truth or doctrine, here it is used for doctrine. Then the possessive genitive
singular from qeoj with the
definite article, and this indicates that doctrine belongs to God. Doctrine is
the manifestation of the integrity of God. The word a)lhqeia describes integrity in terms of truthfulness,
dependablility, and reliability as opposed to the appearance of things on the
surface.
“hath more abounded” –
aorist active indicative of the verb perisseuw, a transitive
verb, it means to cause to abound, it also means to make extremely rich. As an
intransitive verb it means to show itself extremely great, to abound, to be
prominent. Here it means to become more prominent or to become extremely great.
The aorist tense is a constative aorist, it gathers up into one entirety every
time Paul has sought to advance the glory of God by means of a lie. Now Paul
doesn’t seek to do that, he has transferred the objection to himself to refute
it. So he is assuming that position, that he lies to advance the glory of God.
The active voice: Paul assumes this heresy in order to refute it and therefore
the doctrine produces the action. The indicative mood is a potential indicative
used to develop the idea of contingency in the debate.
“through my lie” – e)n plus the instrumental of
the possessive adjective e)moj. The instrumental
is translated “by” and the first person used of the adjective e)moj is translated “my.” Plus
the instrumental singular of yeusma which means lie,
falsehood, undependability, untruthfulness. The prepositional phrase can be
translated, “But if the doctrine of the God has shown itself to be extremely
great by means of my false presentation” or “by my lie.”
“unto his glory” – e)ij plus doca and a)utoj the intensive
pronoun, “for the purpose of his glory.” This is all debater’s technique. Paul
doesn’t believe this, he is simply assuming it. The protasis is a straw man.
The apodosis demonstrates the fallacy of the protasis and it does so with a
question.
“why yet” – the
interrogative pronoun tij, it introduces
the apodosis. Then the adverb e)ti, meaning still or
yet. This means that even thought rhe whole situation has been developed, that
Christ has been judged for sins, this does not keep Paul from being out from
under spiritual death. So this is the adverb of logical inference, it switches
from its temporal use to its inference use. Here is the logical inference used
in an interrogative sentence to demonstrate a fallacy. We also have the first
personal pronoun e)gw, “I” – “why am I
also.”
“judged” – present
passive indicative of krinw. The present
tense is a descriptive present, it is now going on. Passive voice: Paul
receives the action. The indicative mood is declarative for a dogmatic
assertion of fact: Paul is still being judged as a sinner.
“as a sinner” is
literally “as sinful” – the nominative singular from the adjective a(martwloj. This is called
a nominative of exclamation. When it is desired to stress a thought with great
distinctness the nominative is used without the verb as here. It is used
instead with a correlative adverb. The noun or adjective then stands alone and
receives great emphasis.
Translation: “But if
the doctrine of the God has shown itself to be extremely great for the purpose
of his glory [and we assume that it has]; why therefore am I also still being
judged as sinful?”
1. Lies and falsehood are sins.
2. The integrity of God declares these as
being sinful. All lies, all falsehoods were poured out on Christ on the cross
and judged.
3. Therefore sinfulness does not advance the
glory of God and cannot advance the glory of God. Anything that was judged on
the cross doesn’t glorify the justice of God, the glory is in the judging
agent, not in the recipient of the judgment (which would be like saying all
criminals are glorious). Divine integrity advances the glory of God. That which
is the recipient of judgment does not glorify God, it is the justice of God
which is glorified in condemning that which is sinful and evil.
4. Man does not advance the glory of God,
only God can advance the glory of God. We glorify God when we have His full
integrity shared. We receive at the cross His imputed righteousness, and we
receive when we crack the maturity barrier blessing from the justice of God. So
that the righteousness and justice of God, when they are both involved, is the
sphere of glorifying God.
5. He may use man or angels but only God has
the power to advance the glory of God.
6. Man can glorify God but man cannot advance
the glory of God. We glorify God with maximum doctrine resident in the soul so
that the justice of God is free to bless us.
7. Man can glorify God by the use of grace,
by the adjustments to the justice of God, but man cannot advance the glory of
God. Principle: The source is the glory, not the recipients. The source is the
integrity of God.
Verse 8 – “And not rather.” There are simply
two words here, kai mh. It is true that
kai is sometimes
translated “and”, and literally this looks like “and not.” However, there are
four separate and distinct uses of the conjunction kai, and the one which is in view here is the intensive
use which is correctly translated into English “in fact.” Then the negative
particle mh which qualifies
hypothetically, though not actually. The negative o)u denies in fact, the negative mh denies the idea. Hence, we
begin with the denial of a slanderous assertion. “In fact, not true” is the
correct translation.
“as we be slanderously reported” – the adverb
for “as” is kaqwj, used as a
comparative conjunction used to introduce indirect discourse and start a
parenthesis. Then we have also the comparative conjunction used twice in the
parenthesis to introduce two slanderous assertions. The present passive
indicative of blasfhmew for “slander.”
It means to injure the reputation of, to slander, to revile in relationship to
man or to blaspheme in relationship to God. The present tense is a perfective
present, it emphasizes what has occurred in the past but is emphasized as a
present result. This is something that happened in the past but it has a
present result: a reputation which produces a point of doctrine. The passive
voice: Paul receives the action of the verb. It is Paul who is now maligned and
slandered. The indicative mood is declarative for the historical reality of the
fact that Paul, the greatest Bible teacher who ever lived, was maligned and slandered.
“and as some affirm that we say” – this time
the kai is connective
and translated correctly as “and.” Then the comparative conjunction kaqwj again, plus the nominative
plural of the indefinite pronoun tij, which really
isn’t indefinite at all. The indefinite pronoun tij is used to express a category of people
involved—Paul’s critics, especially the Judaisers who are ultra-self-righteous
in their attempts to keep the Mosaic law. Principle: Arrogant
self-righteousness is always critical of grace-oriented doctrinal teaching. But
all the slander and maligning in the world cannot destroy the ministry of
anyone who communicates Bible doctrine. The word “affirm” here means to allege.
This is the present active indicative of fhmi, meaning to allege. This is a progressive present
tense signifying action in progress or a state of persistence, hence very
strong linear aktionsart. The active voice: the arrogant self-righteous
legalists are producing the action of the verb. The indicative mood is
declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of reality. This
actually occurred historically and has great meaning in that sense. Then
the conjunction o(ti plus legw. O(ti is used after
verbs of saying or thinking to show what the content of the alleged concept is.
Then we have the accusative plural of general reference from the personal
pronoun e)gw acting as the
subject of the infinitive. Plus the present active infinitive of legw, and the present tense this
time is descriptive present indicating what is now going on. The active voice:
Paul produces the action of the verb allegedly. He really doesn’t produce it
and that is why it couldn’t be in the indicative mood, that’s why it had to be
in the form of an infinitive. The infinitive is the infinitive of conceived
result in which something is assumed or something is distorted.
Now the content of the slander:
“Let us do evil” – this is what they contend
Paul is saying, the aorist active indicative of the verb poiew for “let us do.” The aorist
tense is a constative aorist, contemplating the action of the verb in its
entirety. Paul is saying this day in and day out so that they have gathered up
into one entirety Paul’s entire ministry. They contend that every day Paul
teaches and without exception every day he says, “Let us do evil.” The active
voice: Paul is alleged to do the action of the verb by his critics.
Furthermore, they put it in the hortatory subjunctive when one exhorts others
to join him in some course of action. Plus the accusative neuter plural direct
object from the definite article used as an abstract adjective to apply it in a
special sense—evil things. Then the accusative neuter plural direct object from
kakoj which with the
definite article is translated “evil things.”
“that good may come” – the conjunction i(na introduces a purpose
clause. This they contend is Paul’s purpose. Then the nominative neuter plural
from a)gaqoj with the
definite article, not “good” but “good things.” Plus the aorist active
subjunctive of the verb e)rxomai, “come.” The
culminative aorist views the purpose in its entirety but it regards it from the
viewpoint of existing results. In other words, the constative aorist is the
means—evil. The culminative aorist is the result—good things. In other words,
using an evil means to attain or achieve good. Paul is alleged to produce the
action again in the active voice. The subjunctive mood goes with the purpose
clause.
1. This phrase, “let us do evil things that
good things may come,” is slander. Paul does not contend that the means
justifies the end, nor the end justifies the means. If the means is evil the
end is evil—always. The means determines the quality of the end, or the result.
2. The end can never be any better than the
means by which the end was achieved. Consequently, God never uses evil to
accomplish good. This is incompatible with the integrity or holiness of God.
3. Under the integrity of God grace is the
means and grace is the result. The integrity of God is the means and the glory
of God is the result.
4. Consequently, only the integrity of God
can glorify the essence of God.
5. There is no place under grace for the
intrusion of man’s self-righteousness or Satan’s policy of evil. The only
reason it ever intrudes at all is because people are ignorant of doctrine.
6. Paul’s ministry and communication of
doctrine was totally compatible with the integrity of God and the principle of
grace.
7. Those who slander grace slander the
integrity of God.
8. Those who malign the communicator of
doctrine malign the Word of God. The Word of God comes from the integrity of
God.
9. The Word of God is the verbalization of
the integrity of God.
10. Therefore these slanderers and maligners
of Paul’s ministry are answerable to divine justice.
11. Since they are maladjusted to the justice
of God the justice of God can only condemn them.
12. The slanderers are liable to punitive
action from the integrity of God.
To show that the
rebuttal is going to come directly, and always does in principle, from the
integrity of God Paul says, “whose damnation is just.” He just steps out of the
way and lets the lightning bolt go right to its target. This includes the
possessive genitive plural from the relative pronoun o(j. Instead of saying “whose”
it is better to bring it over into English “their.” The word “condemnation” is
the nominative singular subject krima, meaning a
judicial verdict, a sentence of condemnation and punishment; “is” – present
active indicative from e)imi. The present
tense is a static present for punishment taken for granted as a fact. Whenever
doctrinal teaching is maligned it is taken for granted as a fact by the static
present that the integrity of God will deal with the culprit. The active voice:
condemnation and punishment from the integrity of God produces the action of
the verb. The indicative mood is declarative for the reality of such
condemnation or punishment. The predicate nominative neuter singular is from
the adjective e)ndikoj, and it means
“deserved”—“their condemnation and punishment is deserved.”
Translation: “In fact,
not true (as we have been slandered, and certain arrogant ones keep alleging
that we say,) Let us do evil things that good things may come. Their
condemnation and punishment is deserved.”
Verse 9 – the first postulate. A postulate is
defined as a proposition which is taken for granted, an essential prerequisite.
The axiom which is taken for granted at this point is the universality of man’s
sin: total depravity. Total depravity elicits both condemnation and spiritual
death for the entire human race. Later on it will be seen in this chapter that
the same justice of God which condemns sinful mankind also provides blessing
for mankind, starting at salvation, for spiritually dead mankind.
“What then?” – ti o)un. Ti is the
nominative neuter singular of the interrogative pronoun tij; o)un is a postpositive
inferential particle used as a conjunction to denote what is introduced at this
point as the result of inference from the previous paragraph. It means
literally, “What then?” or “What therefore?” But it is a Greek idiom and it can
be translated better, “Therefore how are we to understand the situation?”
Remember, you do not literally translate idioms. You either expand the
translate the translation in the English language or approximate it as best you
can.
“Are we better than
they?” – one word here: the first person plural (we) present middle indicative
of the verb proexw. It means to jut
out, to excel, to be first. In the middle voice which we have here it means to
hold something before one’s eyes for protection. The word “we” in proexw refers to the
Jews and to Paul, and the entire human race. It is an editorial we in which he is going to identify
himself with his hearers to make a point. Since proexw in the middle voice means to hold something before
your eyes for protection we translate it this way: “Do we possess anything
which might shield us from the justice of God?” The retroactive progressive
present denotes what has begun in the past and continues into the present time.
The indirect middle: Paul is the agent, he is using debater’s technique, he
identifies himself with self-righteous Jews. He is not identifying himself with
people who are sinners and are aware of the fact. He is identifying himself
with the toughest nut to crack—the self-righteous types. When a person becomes
self-righteous it makes him tough, stupid, indifferent, implacable; and when
they are crossed in this status of self-righteousness this is where they
develop all of the nasty little sins that are not really little sins but the
greatest of all. The indicative mood is the interrogative indicative for the
debater’s question.
“No, in no wise” – o)u pantoj. The particle of
summary negation, o)u, the clear-cut
point blank negative objective and final, it shuts the door. The adverb pantoj which means “by
all means,” but with the negative it means “not at all” or “by no means.”
1. As long as any person in the world thinks
that there is any system of human righteousness, talent, ability, planning or
system of works which can satisfy the justice of God and clings to his system
of self-righteousness, whatever it is, he has no chance of ever having a
relationship with God. The point of reference is the justice of God.
2. No human factor, including Jewish self-righteousness, can therefore provide or add anything to salvation adjustment to the justice of God. The first issue we face in the human race is salvation and there is nothing that we can add to what the justice of God provides.
3. No Jewish rationalism of being better than
the Gentiles will provide salvation—or spirituality, or maturity. All of the
way through this chapter the Jews are in view; they are used as the
illustration.
“for we have before proved” – the
postpositive conjunctive particle gar, used as an
explanatory conjunction to summarise the postulates presented at this point.
Then the aorist middle indicative from the compound verb proaitiaomai [a)itiaomai = to blame or to
charge; pro = before], it
means to accuse beforehand or to already have charged. We translate it “for we
have already indicted.” This is a dramatic aorist tense, it states a present
reality with the certitude of a past event. The idiom is a device for emphasis,
it is used to state a fact which is just and realized, or a result which has
just been accomplished. The middle voice: this is a deponent verb, middle in
form and active in meaning. Paul produces the action, and he has already
produced the action in chaopters one and two. The indicative mood is
declarative for a dogmatic statement of fact.
“both Jews and
Gentiles, that they are all under sin” – the accusative plural from the
adjective paj, “all,” is used as
the predicate nominative of the infinitive. Then the present active infinitive
of e)imi, the verb to be.
The present tense is of duration, it denotes what has begun in the past and
continues into the present time. It is a present reality to whom Paul writes
this as well as to us. All are indicted; all are under sin. The active voice:
Jew and Gentile produce the action of the verb. This is the infinitive of
actual result. Plus a prepositional phrase, u(po plus the accusative of a(martia—“under sin,” singular, a reference to the old sin
nature. Which came forst, sin or the old sin nature? Answer: the old sin nature.
We acquire the old sin nature at birth. Sin in the singular refers to the old
sin nature. Both Jews and Gentiles are born with old sin natures, therefore
both Jews and Gentiles are born spiritually dead.[3]
Translation: “Therefore how are we to understand the situation? Do we possess anything that might shield us from the justice of God? No, not at all: for we have already indicted both and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.”
Verses 10-12, the Old
Testament documentation regarding spiritual death. Spiritual death is related
to sin—Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin imputed: the old sin nature and personal sin. Man
is dead to God while living in this world. He is born that way and continues
that way until salvation adjustment to the justice of God.
Verse 10 – “As it is
written.” The adverb kaqwj indicates a
comparison of the principle just made with what the Old Testament scripture has
to say. Also the perfect passive indicative of the verb grafw is used for the writing of
the Old Testament scriptures, that which is canonical. The perfect tense is a
dramatic perfect, rhetorical use of the intensive perfect, something that is
finished as an object or a function but has results that continue. The
Scripture, the Old Testament canon, is finished when Paul writes; it has been
completed but the results go on forever.
The completed part of the scripture, the Old Testament canon, lives and abides
forever and therefore documentation from something that is absolute, something
that is eternal, something that will be with us throughout all eternity as well
as at the present time. The passive voice: the canon of the Old Testament
scriptures receives the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative
for historical reality of a completed canon of the Old Testament scripture.
Plus the conjunction o(ti introducing
indirect discourse. Therefore, of course, it is not translated, it is
represented by quotation marks. “As it stands written.”
The quotation is from
Psalm 14:1-3—“There is none righteous, no, not one.” First is the strong
negative o)u, it denies the
reality of an alleged fact. Plus the present active indicative of e)imi, the verb to be. This is a
static present representing a condition which perpetually exists. This has
always been true and always will be. The active voice: the human race produces
the action of the verb, whether Jew or Gentile. The racial issue is destroyed
by the integrity of God. When it says “there is none righteous, no, not one,”
it means that in Paul’s day, Jew and Gentile. It means in our day whatever
races allegedly exist, there is no such thing as purity of race. Then the
predicate nominative of the adjective dikaioj. The word means righteousness, justice, and
sometimes integrity. Tsadiq in the
Hebrew has the same connotation. Both of these words can refer to either part
of God’s integrity or all of God’s integrity. Used in connection with man other
connotations, generally righteousness, are in view. But we use it here first in
the sense of relating it to God, and then we can understand why the integrity
of God is not used here because we are talking about man. So with man it still
has an integrity connotation, it means to fulfill duty toward God. Here it is
used for the integrity of God, +R. “There is not a righteous one,”
i.e. there is no member of the human race is born with +R or its
equivalent. We are born without righteousness. Why do we have to be reminded of
this? Because we are stimulated by human praise, and that is a sign of
spiritual death. We live our lives under the opinions of others. After we are
born we actually become worse, and it cannot be changed apart from the
integrity of God.
1. No one has the integrity of God at birth,
and no one acquires the integrity of God by any system of works righteousness,
self-righteousness, any system of emotional activity, asceticism or
tabooism.
2. No righteousness in man is comparable to
God’s perfect righteousness.
3. Not only does man lack in spiritual death
God’s righteousness but he also lacks a sense of justice. No justice in man can
compare with the justice of God. We start out with no justice and we develop
systems of self-justice. Human justice fluctuates; human righteousness
fluctuates. It is never for the better, no matter how it appears to others,
unless it is related to the integrity of God. We are talking about man
spiritually dead.
4. Therefore man cannot approach God on the
basis of his own merits or his own integrity.
5. Consequently, adjusting to the justice of
God is a matter of grace. God provides the means for such adjustment by the
imputation of His righteousness at the point of salvation. From then on, if you
stay with doctrine, it is all uphill/downhill, i.e. you are moving toward the
goal of cracking the maturity barrier but it is downhill if you stay with
doctrine. At salvation you receive the righteousness of God but at maturity you
receive the blessings from the justice of God. The righteousness and the
justice of God are totally involved in your life when you crack the maturity
barrier.
“no, not one” – the
negative conjunction o)ude is used to
connect negative sentences and is translated “not even”; the numeral e(ij is used here like an
indefinite article or pronoun, meaning anyone, someone, or a certain one. It
refers to the self-righteous type trying to be saved by keeping the law, but it
refers to anyone who tries to be saved by his schemes, experiences,
righteousness, personality. So o)ude
e(ij makes no exceptions in the human race. The only exception was the one
who was the God-Man, Jesus Christ.
Translation: “As it
stands written, There is not a righteous one, not even one.”
Interpretation
1. No member of the human race possesses the
integrity of God, or its exact equivalent.
2. The justice of God has correctly placed
the entire human race under the indictment and condemnation of spiritual death.
3. Spiritual death means total inability to
have a relationship with God.
4. Human essence is classified, therefore, as
totally depraved on the basis of the fact of failure to meet the standards of
divine integrity.
5. Spiritual death is not only the status of
spiritual man, but spiritual death describes man’s inability to do anything
about it.
6. Man must rely entirely upon the integrity of God. When you believe in Jesus Christ that is the first time you rely on the integrity of God.
7. The integrity of
God has provided the means of adjusting to the justice of God.
8. The means is the judgment of Christ on the
cross, bearing our sins, taking our place in the condemnation of the justice of
God.
Verse 11 – “There is
none that understandeth,” o)uk
e)stin o( suniwn. It includes the strong negative and the present
active indicative of e)imi.
The
present tense is a static present representing a condition which perpetually
exists in the human race (unbelievers), those in spiritual death. The active
voice: the unbelievers in the human race produce the action of the verb, they
are ignorant of spiritual phenomena. The indicative mood is declarative
representing the verbal action from the viewpoint of reality. We also have an
articular present active participle from the verb sunihmi. It connotes cognisance of technical knowledge. It
means to comprehend or to know the underlying laws and the meaning of an
object. This means therefore to gain insight into something. “There is not one
who comprehends”, referring to Bible doctrine and specifically to the fact that
in spiritual death the unbeliever cannot comprehend spiritual phenomena. The
unbeliever cannot understand the gospel, that is why it is necessary for the
ministry of God the Holy Spirit under the theological category of common grace
to make the information clear. The definite article of sunihmi is used as a
relative pronoun referring to the entire human race as unbelievers. The present
tense is a static present, it indicates that the condition of spiritual death
exists for everyone who has ever been born into the world, or will be, except
in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever in spiritual death cannot
understand doctrine. Doctrine is the verbalising of divine integrity and he has
no cognisance of God’s integrity. Part of spiritual death, therefore, is not
only that lack of God’s perfect righteousness but the fact that man cannot
understand God – His attributes, how they function, how He applies the function
of His attributes to His creatures, what His policy is, and how we can have a
relationship with Him. The active voice: the unbeliever produces this
ignorance. The participle is circumstantial, used here for a relative clause. This
clause explains again why God the Holy Spirit must act as a human spirit to
make the gospel perspicuous, i.e. to turn the gospel which is a blank to him
into e)pignwsij gospel. “There
is not one who comprehends doctrine.”
1.
The convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit is a reference to the
pre-salvation ministry of the third person of the Trinity. God the Holy Spirit.
Acts as a human spirit to clarify the gospel to the unbeliever, so that with e)pignwsij understanding in
a state of spiritual death he can make that one important decision that brings
him from the darkness of spiritual death to the light of regeneration.
2.
The need for the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit is found in 1
Corinthians 2:11,14 – “Who among men knows the thoughts of a man, except the
life of that man which is in him [the life referring to the soul and
specifically the mentality of the soul]? Even so the thoughts of God no one
knows, except the Spirit of God.” This describes again the fact that man in the
status of spiritual death not only is ignorant of doctrine, and therefore
ignorant of the integrity of God which is his point of reference for salvation,
but there is no way that he can overcome his ignorance. There is no vocabulary
he can learn, no way within the framework of his soul that he can function and
become cognisant. He cannot overcome his ignorance by the function of his
mentality. Man can overcome his ignorance with regard to human phenomena but
man does not have the ability to overcome his ignorance with regard to
spiritual phenomena. There is nothing in man whereby he has the ability to
understand. Spiritual death means, among other things, total ignorance of
spiritual phenomena (doctrine). “But the soulish man [unbeliever] does not
acquire knowledge of the things of the Spirit of God; for to him they are
foolishness, and he is not able to acquire this knowledge because it is
discerned from the source of the spirit.” So the need is based on the fact that
the unbeliever is spiritually dead, and not only can he not produce a
righteousness
3.
So God must come in to the picture – principle of grace. The first
reference to the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit is found in Genesis
6:3, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man … yet his days shall be one
hundred and twenty years.” It was one hundred and twenty years to the flood and
all of the way to the point of judgement there would be the ministry of God the
Holy Spirit. Grace always precedes judgement whether it is personal or
collective.
4.
The mechanics for the convincing ministry of the Holy Spirit are
brought out by one Greek word found in 2 Peter 2:20,21, e)pignwsij. It is generally
translated ‘knowledge’, it means full knowledge, total cognisance.
5.
The doctrine of common grace, the basic doctrine of the ministry of the
Holy Spirit in making spiritual phenomena, the gospel, cognisant to the
unbeliever who is spiritually dead without the capabilities of cognisance.
Common grace, then, is the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing the gospel to
the unbeliever. It includes enablement to understand, to perceive not only the
work of Christ in relationship to the integrity of God but the means of
attainment. Two areas: The gospel includes the work of Christ and the means of
attainment or appropriation. This ministry is designed to present the call to
faith in Jesus Christ and/or adjustment to the justice of God at salvation. A dead man cannot understand the things of
life; the spiritually dead unbeliever cannot understand the things of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18; 2:14; John 6:44; Romans 8:7; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4.
6.
The categories for the function of common grace: John 16:8-11.
Verse 8 — “And when he is come” – the aorist
active participle of e)rxomai refers to the
ministry of God the Holy Spirit. The aorist tense gathers up into one entirety
every time the Holy Spirit takes the gospel under the principle of common grace
and turns it into e)pignwsij gospel in the
right lobe of the spiritually dead unbeliever. E)rxomai means to arrive. The Holy Spirit arrives whenever
the gospel is being presented. So it is not “when He has come,” it is “when He
has arrived.” The Holy Spirit is always there whenever the gospel is presented.
“ …he will reprove”. The active voice: the Holy Spirit produces the action,
circumstantial participle for the function of common grace. This is the future
active indicative of e)legxw which means to
expose, to reprove, to convince, to lay bare. Here it means to convince. E)pignwsij information is
information that you understand clearly, an understanding not only of the
information necessary but the means of acquiring what the information presents.
Who
is convinced? “The world” – the accusative singular of kosmoj, referring to
unregenerate mankind, the unbeliever. And notice the three things that are
mentioned: “of sin” – peri plus the
genitive of a(martia, a noun which is
defined in the next verse. This is talking about what constitutes a sin for
which Christ could not and did not die, the sin of unbelief, the sin of
rejection of Christ; “of righteousness” – peri plus the genitive singular of dikaiosunh, which means
righteousness, the thinking of a judge, and sometimes it means the combination
of righteousness and justice, the full integrity of God; “of justice” – peri plus the genitive of krisij, the act of
judgement. None of these words are defined in verse 8.
“When he arrives he
will convince the world [unbelievers] concerning sin, concerning righteousness,
concerning judgement.”
Verse 9 – “Of sin” is peri plus the genitive of a(martia again,
“Concerning sin because,” o(ti, “they believe
not,” present active indicative of pisteuw with a strong
negative, o)u. The present
tense is an aoristic present, something that happens in a moment of time. In a
moment of time here, however, it is something they do not do. The active voice:
the unbeliever who rejects Christ produces the action of the verb. He does not
believe in Jesus Christ. The indicative mood is declarative representing the
verbal action from the viewpoint of historical reality. This is what actually
happens in many cases, though not all.
“on me” – e)ij, a directional preposition,
plus the accusative e)gw. It could be
translated “toward me” but “on me” is all right, as is “in me.”
“Concerning sin
because they do not believe in me.” The only sin for which Christ could not be
judged on the cross was rejection of His work, John 3:18,36.
Verse 10 – “Of
righteousness” is peri plus the dikaiosunh. This is the
righteousness you receive when you believe. When you believe the righteousness
of God becomes yours, and once it does you are justified or vindicated.
Justification is a judicial act by which God in His justice pronounces you
righteous, but He can’t pronounce you righteous until you are. The only way you
can be righteous is to believe in Christ for the very second that you do you
receive God’s righteousness.
“because I go” –
present active indicative of u(pagw which means to
depart, to go away. It means departure after work completed. Christ is going to
depart after His work is finished. He is not going to leave before the cross,
He is going to leave after the cross, after the resurrection; “to my Father” – proj plus the accusative of pathr – “face to face with my
Father.”
Verse 11 – “Of judgement”
ahould be “Concerning justice” or “Concerning the act of judgement because the
prince of this world [the chief ruler of this world], reference to Satan – John
12:31; 14:30.
“is judged” – perfect
passive indicative of krinw. The ruler of
this world is to be judged from the justice of God. The justice of God judged
our sins at the cross; the justice of God judges Satan at the second advent.
The justice of God is the source of judgement to all who reject God’s work of
salvation.
Romans 3:11 – “There is
not one who comprehends doctrine” – specifically the gospel. Therefore in the
sense of knowing something there is no one who seeks after God. It must be
understood that this phrase, seeking after God, has nothing to do with positive
volition at God-consciousness. This is talking about something else. In between
God-consciousness and gospel hearing there is no way that you can understand
anything about God [gospel part] and therefore seek for Him. In other words,
because we are dead we can’t seek. Dead people do not seek; “there is none” – o)uk e)imi. The present
tense is a static present, it represents a condition perpetually existing among
unbelievers in status quo, spiritually dead. The active voice: unbelievers
produce the action. The indicative mood is declarative representing the
statement from the viewpoint of reality. Plus the articular present active
participle of e)kzhtew which means to
seek out on the basis of cognisance. This condition perpetually exists for
mankind after God-consciousness. He may have been positive at God-consciousness
but he never learns anything more on his own. Mankind can reach
God-consciousness through the function of his own intellect but he does not
have the ability to go beyond God-consciousness on his own.
“after God” is the
accusative singular direct object of qeoj, as well as the
accusative singular direct object of the definite article to indicate someone
well-known to the readers – “there is not one who searches for the God.”
Translation: “There is not one who comprehends doctrine, there is not one who
searches for the God.”
Verse 12 – “They have
all gone out of the way” – pantej e)ceklinan. We have a
nominative masculine singular plural subject, paj which is an adjective. It refers to all
unbelievers, all who are spiritually dead. Then we have the aorist active
indicative of e)kklinw which means to
turn aside, to deviate. “All [unbelievers] have turned aside.” This is a
constative aorist, it contemplates the action of unbeliever reversionism in its
entirety, it recognises that all unbelievers are in the state of spiritual
death and it gathers them up into that hopeless picture. The active voice: the
unbeliever produces the action of the verb. This is a declarative indicative
for the reality of the fact that the unbeliever in his spiritual death, in his
ignorance, in his lack of righteousness, seeks to provide something that will
gain the attention of God. It starts with arrogance, it goes to
self-righteousness, and it is totally rejected by God.
“they are” is not found
in the original; “together become unprofitable” – the adverb a(ma, it denotes the coincidence
of two actions in time. So it is translated, “at the same time.”
“become unprofitable”
– the aorist passive indicative of a)xreiow
which
means to become useless, worthless, depraved. “At the same time they have
become depraved.” The culminative aorist views the maladjustment and
reversionism of the unbeliever in its entirety and regards it from the
viewpoint of existing results. This is unbeliever reversionism. They didn’t
start out depraved, they became that. They were just spiritually dead, now they
are spiritually dead and depraved. The passive voice: as a result of
maladjustment at the justice of God at salvation the reversionistic,
self-righteous unbeliever becomes worthless, useless, or depraved. The
declarative indicative is for the pattern of reversionism and maladjustment to
the justice of God at salvation. Any maladjustment causes the one involved to
go into reversionism.
“there is none that
doeth good” – this means there is not one who does good. The active voice plus
the negative o)uk indicates that
the maladjusted to the justice of God produces the action of the verb, not
attaining divine integrity. The indicative mood is declarative for unqualified
assertion that maladjustment to the justice of God cannot attain divine
integrity. Then there is another articular present active participle, poiew. This time it is a
perfective present used to denote the continuation of existing results. The
active voice: the maladjustment to the justice of God produces the action.
Finally, the accusative singular direct object xrhstothj. It was used in Attic Greek for honesty,
respectability, worthiness, integrity. In the Koine Greek it means also
goodness, virtue, gentleness, kindness:
“there is not one who attains the integrity.”
Translation: “All have
turned aside [into reversionism (unbelievers)], at the same time they have
become depraved; there is not one who attains the integrity [of God], not even
one.”
Principles
1.
By interpretation this reversionism and this reversionist is one who
has rejected e)pignwsij gospel. In other
words, one who is maladjusted to the justice of God at salvation. Such
maladjustment leads to the eight stages of unbeliever reversionism. The stages
are the same for believer or unbeliever.
2.
The latter stages of reversionism result in depravity and degeneracy.
3.
Without the integrity of God man is nothing, accomplishes nothing,
improves nothing, reforms nothing, attains nothing.
4.
Personally, collectively, historically, nothing is more important than
the integrity of God and our relationship to it.
5.
Either we adjust to the justice of God or the justice of God will
adjust to us.
6.
No individual can attain salvation apart from the integrity of God.
7.
No individual can have eternal and temporal blessings apart from the
integrity of God.
8.
Nationally, social, economic and political reform is meaningless apart
from the integrity of God. By meaningless it not only fails to accomplish its
objective but it creates more problems.
9.
No nation can enjoy freedom and possess prosperity apart from the
integrity of God.
10.
Socialism, liberalism and the resultant welfare state is the illusion
and fantasy which comes from maladjustment to the justice of God, the exclusion
of the integrity of God.
11.
Obviously you cannot have salvation, eternal life, temporal prosperity,
happiness or eternal blessing without the integrity of God.
12.
Freedom and prosperity in the nation can only be meaningful and
permanent when related to divine integrity.
13.
Apart from the integrity of God the possession of every
happiness-related factor in life is meaningless.
14.
Apart from the integrity of God social, economic and political reform
is also meaningless.
Verses 13-18, Old Testament documentation
regarding consequent reversionism.
Verse 13 – documentation from Psalm 5:9 which
translated from the Hebrew says, “”There is nothing reliable in what they say;
their inward part is destruction itself; their throat is an open grave; they
flatter with their tongue.” The psalmist was under attack from gossip,
maligning, judging, and he states to God that there is nothing reliable in what
they say. They are irresponsible, they are arrogant, they are inadequate,
guilty of inordinate ambition, jealous, vindictive, and they express their
implacability through the sins of the tongue. This is the verse which is being
quoted in Romans 3:13.
“Their throat is an open sepulcher” – the
nominative singular subject of larugc, the word for
throat or gullet. It refers to the larynx or vocal cords where columns of air
are converted into sound to form speech. The larynx is the organ of speech,
hence it is a reference to speech. It is speech from reversionism and therefore
evil speech. The possessive genitive plural from the intensive pronoun a)utoj is used here as
a possessive pronoun, therefore translated “Their larynx., their organ of
speech.” Then a predicate nominative singular from tafoj which means “grave,” plus the perfect passive
participle a)noigw, meaning to
open. The perfect tense is the intensive perfect indicating a completed action
with emphasis on the results of the action. Someone has opened the tomb and
there is a corpse in the state of decomposition, and the result of opening the
tomb is first of all something very offensive to the sense of smell. In other
words, a stench. This is the emphatic method of presenting a fact or a
condition and hence it is called the perfect of existing state. The passive
voice: the larynx opens up and takes the columns of air to be converted to
speech. Words are formed. The participle is circumstantial. Corrected
translation: “Their larynx [organ of speech] is a grave which has been opened.”
When you open a grave the first thing you notice is the stench. The second
thing to be noticed is that there is no dignity in a dead corpse; it has long
ago departed. The grave which has been opened describes the sins of the tongue.[4]
“with their tongues they have used deceit” –
the instrumental plural of glwssa. The tongue is
also an instrument of speech. The possessive genitive plural from the intensive
pronoun a)utoj—“their tongues.”
However, this is an instrumental case and it should be translated “with their tongues.” The verb is the
imperfect active indicative of doliow which means to
deceive deceit with the tongue, by speech—“with their tongues they keep
deceiving.” The imperfect tense is a progressive imperfect, it denotes action
in progress in past time—linear aktionsart in past time. It is used, then, to
condemn those who are guilty of gossiping, slandering and maligning. The active
voice: generally the reversionist (sometimes not) produces the action. The
indicative moo is declarative representing the verbal action from the viewpoint
of reality: this actually goes on everyday somewhere.
“the poison of asps is under their lips” is
not quite correct. The nominative singular subject is i)oj, for venom. The genitive
plural of the intensive pronoun a)utoj is used as a
possessive pronoun—“their venom.” Then the descriptive genitive plural a)spij, the Greek word
for the Egyptian cobra. The prepositional phrase is u(po plus the accusative of xeiloj—“under their lips.” The lips are the secret to
annunciation. Being slandered or maligned is like being struck by a cobra. The
victim is not the one being slandered but the one who believes the gossip. The
venom is not going into the victim, it is going into the people who listen to
the gossip.
Translation: “Their
vocal cords are a grave which has been opened; with their tongues they keep on
deceiving; the venom of cobras is under their lips.”
Verse
14 – documentation from Psalm 10:7. Translation from the Hebrew: “His mouth is
full of curses and deceit and oppression; under his tongue is evil and
wickedness.”
“Whose mouth is full
of cursing and bitterness” – the possessive genitive plural from the relative
pronoun o(j, followed by the
nominative singular which is the subject stoma, “whose mouth.” Plus a descriptive genitive
singular from a)pa, meaning a wish
or a petition, hence a curse in the sense of an imprecation, a prayer for harm
or injury to come upon someone, an oath or a vow of retribution and revenge. It
is translated correctly “revenge.” Plus a descriptive genitive singular from pikria for
“bitterness,” plus the present active indicative of the verb gemw, meaning to be full. The present tense is a perfective present
denoting the continuation of the existing results of reversionism under the
influence of evil. It shows the results of maladjustment to the justice of God
and it indicates the principle that without divine integrity there is no human
integrity. The active voice: the maladjusted reversionist produces the action.
This is a declarative indicative mood for the reality of maladjusted
reversionism being saturated with sins of the tongue and expressing from this
the whole system of evil.
Translation: “Whose
mouth of revenge and bitterness keeps on being filled.”
1. The maladjusted person enters
reversionism. Such reversionism brings the maladjusted under the influence of
evil.
2. Revenge and bitterness saturate his soul
and he seeks to build his happiness on someone else’s unhappiness—operation
revenge.
3. Mental and verbal sins link up to form the
revenge pattern.
4. The revenge pattern always involves two
basic principles that are violated: a) you cannot build your happiness on
someone else’s unhappiness; b) two wrongs never make a right.
5. Words are the first and primary weapon of
the human race in operation revenge.
6. Words are like the venom of the cobra,
like bullets to destroy others.
Next comes some additional documentation from
Isaiah 59:7,8, quoted in verses 15-17. Translated from the Hebrew: “Their feet
run to evil, and they hurry to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts
of iniquity; devastation and destruction are in their highways. They do not
know the way of peace [the way of prosperity], and there is no justice in their
tracks; they have made their paths crooked; whoever treads on them does not
know peace.”
This passage has been quoted in the New Testament
from the Septuagint. Therefore some slight differences, beginning in verse 15.
Verse 15 – “Their feet are swift to shed
blood.” The nominative plural subject from pouj, the word for feet, plus the possessive genitive
plural from the intensive pronoun a)utoj is emphasizing
the identity of the maladjusted reversionist under the influence of evil. It is
translated “Their feet.” Plus the predicate nominative masculine plural from o)cuj which means swift or quick.
Then the aorist active infinitive from e)kxew which means to pour out, with the accusative
singular a(ima for “blood.”
With a(ima, e)kxew means not to
pour out but to murder. The constative aorist refers to a momentary action. The
active voice: the maladjusted reversionist under the influence of evil produces
the action.
Translation: “Their feet are swift to commit
murder.”
Note that from the original quotation of
Isaiah 59:7 that it says “their feet are swift to run evil,” and then it goes
on to mention murder. The principle is the same in both passages: Evil sponsors
murder and violence as a means of problem-solving. We know from the Word of God
that problem-solving is accomplished through the integrity of God. Evil
therefore contends that the end result justifies the means by which the result is
attained. But the end never justifies the means.[5]&[6]
Verse 16 – the second line of Isaiah 59:7.
“Destruction and misery are in their ways” – the nominative singular subject suntrimma, derived from
the verb sutribw meaning to
shatter, to smash, to crush, to destroy. Both the verb and the cognate refer to
breaking bones, smashing skulls, crushing bodies. It was originally used in the
Greek for killing in battle but it eventually came to mean historical use of
violence. Probably as close as we will come is historical disaster, if it is
understood that it means violence. So we translate it “historical disaster” or
“being destroyed violently.” Mankind creates the evil by which he destroys
himself, or destroys others, in historical disaster. Then a second nominative
singular subject talaipwria which means
wretchedness, distress, trouble or misery. This noun connotes personal
suffering rather than historical disaster. With this is a prepositional phrase,
e)n plus the
locative of o(doj, and a)utoj—“are in their highways.”
There is no verb to be, it is included in order to smooth out the English.
Translation: “Historical disaster and
personal suffering are in their highways.”
This means that reversionism always connotes
historical as well as personal disaster for the people involved. No client
nation can have freedom and prosperity apart from the integrity of God, and
maladjustment means both personal and historical disaster.
Verse 17 – documentation from Isaiah 59:8,
“And the way of peace they have not known.” This includes the intensive use of
the conjunction kai, meaning “in
fact.” Plus the strong negative o)uk and the aorist
active indicative from the verb ginwskw which means to
understand, to comprehend, and here the corrected translation is, “They have
not understood.” This is a constative aorist which contemplates the action of
the verb in its entirety, it takes the occurrence of reversionistic
maladjustment to the justice of God and regardless of its duration gathers it
up into one entirety. This is the spin-off from the historical pivot. The
active voice: those who are maladjusted to the justice of God are ignorant of
divine integrity. The manifestation and verbalization of divine integrity is
Bible doctrine. Ignorance of doctrine mean ignorance of integrity. The
indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal action from the
viewpoint of historical reality. Then an accusative singular direct object from
o(doj meaning highway
or way, and with it a descriptive genitive singular of the noun e)irhnh which means
tranquility, blessing, health, harmony, welfare. The word does not denote a
relationship between several people or an attitude but a state. It means
prosperity in the sense of tranquility or blessing, and sometimes prosperity in
the sense of freedom from war. It connotes blessing from the integrity of God.
Translation: “In fact they have not known the
way of peace,” i.e. they have not known adjustment to the justice of God and
therefore have not known blessing from the justice of God.
The way of peace
1. It is obviously not world peace, freedom from war. The way of peace is a relationship with the integrity of God.
2. The relationship is established through
adjustment to the justice of God under three categories: a) Salvation
adjustment to the justice of God; b) Rebound adjustment to the justice of God;
c) Maturity adjustment to the justice of God—the daily function of GAP,
cracking the maturity barrier.
3. Relationship with the integrity of God
means first of all salvation. Then, afterward, fellowship with God through
rebound, and maturity adjustment to the justice of God for blessing.
4. All of this adds up to e)irhnh, true blessing
and true security.
5. There can only be one true security in
life: relationship with the integrity of God.
6. Neither the individual nor the nation has
any real security apart from the integrity of God.
7. The word e)irhnh or peace also means prosperity. Principle:
Individual prosperity is related to the integrity of God as well.
Verse 18 – documentation from Psalm 36:1. Translated from the Hebrew: “Transgression speaks to the ungodly [maladjustment to the justice of God] within his heart, there is no respect of God before his eyes.” In other words, transgression is violation of the laws of divine establishment, of the principles by which one becomes adjusted to the justice of God. Transgression has a very narrow sense of being used for certain types of sins, but transgression has a broader sense, as here, for violation of certain rules of life. The rules are set up by the integrity of God and the rules of life include certain very well defined principles. “No respect for God before his eyes”—no respect for God has to do with a principle: No respect means lack of relationship with the integrity of God.
“There is no fear of God before their eyes” – present active indicative of e)imi and the negative o)uk. The static present means the is constantly not. Then the predicate nominative singular from foboj which has several related meanings. It originally meant fear, but when you had fear of authority it came to mean respect and awe. It is even a great word in the Greek for love. The strongest love found among the ancient Greeks was foboj. When they had respect for someone and loved then it was a much more stable love than the sentimental type. Next is an improper preposition (an adverb used for a preposition) a)penanti, and with it o)fqalmoj: “There is no respect for God in his perception.” Plus a possessive genitive plural of the intensive pronoun a)utoj.
Translation: “There is no respect for God before his eyes [in the sense of perception].”
This has two applications, one to the individual and one to the nation.
The individual
1. Any member of the human race who ignores his personal sins as a sign of spiritual death, and at the same time brings his own human righteousness to God for salvation, has neither respect for God nor awe for His integrity. He has no respect for the thinking of God.
2. We call this maladjustment. Maladjustment to the justice of God means no relationship with the integrity of God—salvation maladjustment.
3. No relationship with the integrity of God
means lack of respect in human ignorance and arrogance causing
self-righteousness.
4. Continued lack of relationship with the
integrity of God results in arrogance, building up the case for
self-righteousness.
5. The case for self-righteousness always
excludes the integrity of God.
6. Excluding the integrity of God results in
no respect for God and no blessing from God.
1. No nation can possess freedom, prosperity
and blessing apart from the integrity of God.
2. Respect for the integrity of God
originates by adjustment to the justice of God.
3. Only the justice of God can bless mankind,
and only under grace conditions.
4. Social, economic and political reform
apart from the integrity of God are useless, meaningless, and create great
problems—e.g. tyranny.
5. Social, economic and political reform
apart from the integrity of God causes chaos, revolution, national degeneration,
and eventual destruction under the 5th cycle of discipline.
6. Political and theological liberalism seeks
social, economic and political reform apart from the integrity of God.
7. Therefore human good, the plans and
schemes of socialism, the function of the welfare state, are doomed to
disaster. No welfare state has ever survived historically.
Verses 19-20, the true purpose of the Mosaic
law.
Verse 19 – the
enclitic conjunctive particle de is used as a
transitional conjunction. With it is the perfect active indicative of o)ida used as a present tense for
cognizance and comprehension. This is a perfective present which denotes the
continuation of existing results. The existing results come from understanding
Bible doctrine. If there is only one virtue in the Christian way of life it
would be knowledge of doctrine. This is the only way in which we can relate to
the integrity of God, it is the only way we can orient to the operation of
grace, the divine plan from eternity past. The active voice: the fist person
plural suffix which is used if the assertion contains a fact relative to the
one asserting, and other believers. Therefore Paul and other believers produce
the action of the verb. It is translated correctly, “we.” The indicative mood
is declarative for the reality of understanding a point of doctrine. After
words of comprehension we often have a conjunction which is used to indicate
the content of perception—o(ti. Then a
nominative neuter plural from the correlative conjunction o(soj, used in a qualitative
sense—“whatever things” or “how many things” would be a correct translation.
The nominative singular subject from nomoj refers to the
Mosaic law which has been abused by Jews in Paul’s day and distorted into a
system of producing self-righteousness rather than its original and divine
purpose: condemnation. The present active indicative of the verb legw means to say, to speak to
communicate. The present tense is a retroactive progressive present denoting
what has begun in the past and continues into the present time. The active
voice: the Mosaic law produces the action by its communication as a part of the
Word of God. ^The indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal idea
from the viewpoint of reality. Since the law has been written people have
studied it, people have examined it, people have heard it taught, and they have
come to one of two conclusions: either that they are condemned by the law and
therefore need to turn to the grace of God for help, or they use the law as a
system of self-righteousness and seek to gain the approbation of God in this
manner. This is the difference between religion and Christianity. So far we
have: “Now we understand that whatever things the law says.”
Then we have another
verb for communication, the present active indicative of lalew. The present tense is a
historical present viewing a past event with the vividness of a present
occurrence. The active voice: the Mosaic law produces the action. The
declarative indicative is for a dogmatic and unqualified assertion of fact. The
dative plural indirect object from the definite article is used as a pronoun.
The dative of indirect object indicates the Jews in whose interest the law was
given. With this is a dative of advantage and a prepositional phrase, e)n plus the locative of nomoj. Translation: “it speaks
[communicates] to those under the jurisdiction of the law.” It is obvious,
then, that the Mosaic law was given to the nation of Israel. Exodus 19:3;
Leviticus 26:46; Romans 9:4. Furthermore, the dative of advantage indicates
that the Jews were benefited by having the law—spiritually, nationally and
personally—since it was the means of relating both the person and the nation to
the integrity of God. The person was related to the integrity of God by discovering
that sin was a sign of his spiritual death and that he had to go outside of
himself for salvation, and therefore the wonderful principles of Codex #2 in
which Jesus Christ was portrayed in all of His glory—the various articles of
furniture in the tabernacle, the modus operandi of the Levitical priesthood,
the animal sacrifices, the holy days, etc. All of these things are designed for
blessing. Codex #3 also was the basis for national blessing since the laws of
divine establishment are clearly delineated in that portion of the Mosaic law.
So the dative of advantage is very significant because it shows that the Jews
were benefited by having the law. The law is a part of doctrine, it reveals
Christ. The law is the greatest instrument of evangelism in all of the ancient
world, and still is a great instrument of evangelism.
“that every mouth may
be stopped” – who does the talking? Anyone who goes to the law and extracts
from it a system of self-righteousness, or goes to the law and uses its ritual
to seek to gain the approbation of God. This phrase includes the conjunction i(na with the subjunctive to
introduce a purpose clause. With this is the nominative neuter singular of the
adjective paj, “all,” and the
nominative neuter singular of stoma, “mouth.” Plus the
aorist passive subjunctive from the verb prassw which means to fence in, to block up, to shut up,
to close up, to stop. “That every mouth may be closed” doesn’t mean simply to
keep people from trying to claim they can be saved by keeping the law, it means
to cut off any system of thought that adds human works to the work of Christ in
eternal salvation. So shutting the mouth is really not the issue, it is cutting
off the blasphemous thoughts. Any time that a person says he can be saved by
keeping a ritual, by keeping the law, by his good deeds, the function of his
emotion, he has in effect blasphemed the integrity of God. The culminative
aorist tense of prassw views the
function of the law in its entirety but emphasizes the existing results: the
silence of any defense against the integrity of God. The passive voice: the
subject which, in effect, is broadened out to include the entire human
race—specifically the Jews who tried a system of legalism in keeping the law
for salvation—receives the action of the verb by instrumentality of the Mosaic
law, i.e. condemnation.
The question arises, then: If the law was
addressed specifically to Israel how does it bring the entire world under
indictment? The answer: Israel under the law stands as the representative of the
human race. God not only used Israel in special ways for the priest nation
function but He used Israel as an illustration of the entire human race. Israel
under the law stands as a representative of the human race, and the fact that
Israel failed under the law demonstrates the universal condemnation and guilt
of the human race before the integrity of God. Any person who fails in one
point of the law is guilty of the entire law—James 2:10. In the test case of
Israel every mouth is closed. This is a Jewish idiom of guilt, having no
defense against the integrity of God. Hence, the law demonstrates to the entire
world, both Jew and Gentile, that they are guilty as far as the integrity of
God is concerned. His righteousness rejects sinfulness; His justice pronounces
the penalty: spiritual death, no relationship with God on the basis of any
human modus operandi or human modus vivendi. The subjunctive mood is a
potential subjunctive used to introduce a purpose clause, and since the law is
also a part of the Word of God which abides forever it stands as an instrument
of condemnation forever. Codex #1 of the Mosaic law logically comes first, all
of those commandments that demonstrate sinfulness. Personal sin demonstrates
spiritual death. The possession of the old sin nature is the basis and the
source of spiritual death. We commit personal sins because we are spiritually
dead, we do not become spiritually dead by the committing of these sins. At the
moment of physical birth we have the imputation of Adam’s sin, we have the old
sin nature, and that is the basis of spiritual death. From the old sin nature
comes personal sins. These sins are a manifestation of what we are, not the
means of becoming spiritually dead.
“and all the world” – the connective kai plus the nominative
singular paj, plus the
subject, the nominative singular of kosmoj. “And all the
world” comes to mean the whole world.
“may become” – aorist active subjunctive of
the verb ginomai. The aorist
tense is a culminative aorist, it views the accountability in its entirety but
regards it from the viewpoint of existing results. The results are always
condemnation. Every time we as believers commit a sin we recognize our former
condition, that we were formerly spiritually dead. For the unbeliever, every
time he sins is a manifestation of his status quo before God. He is spiritually
dead, which means no capability of establishing a relationship with God on the
basis of his own actions, his own works. The active voice: the entire human
race produces the action of the verb, becoming liable to judgment. The
subjunctive mood is the continuation of the purpose clause.
“guilty” – predicate nominative from the noun
u(podikoj. This word was
first used by Aeschylus to indicate a person who is culpable, who deserves
blame; hence a person who is so guilty from the facts that he must be subjected
to trial, and long before the trial takes place in effect he is already
condemned.
“before God” – the dative singular of qeoj, with the definite article
used for someone who knows the person very well.
Translation: “Now we understand that whatever
things the law says, it speaks to those under the jurisdiction of the law: that
every mouth may be closed, and the whole world may become accountable to the
God.”
1. The entire world of mankind is subject to
the justice of God—justice as a part of the integrity of God.
2. Because of God’s perfect integrity the
result is condemnation and liability to punishment, apart from salvation.
3. The infinite, eternal, self-existing, immutable
God has integrity.
4. In other words, God has had and always
will, absolute integrity from eternity past. Exodus 15:11; 19:10-16; Isaiah
6:3.
5. This holiness or integrity of God is
required in man before he can go from condemnation to eternal salvation and
justification. God isn’t going to accept any one of us until we have His
integrity for justification. 2
Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:7.
6. God’s integrity is maintained by His
perfect essence. It is, in effect, God’s unchangeable self.
7. The integrity of God is God’s holiness
acting toward other beings. God’s righteousness is perfect, demanding perfect
righteousness. God’s judgments are perfect, demanding perfection in His
creatures.
8. God’s justice administers the penalty
which God’s righteousness demands.
9. In righteousness is the divine love for
His integrity revealed. In justice is the divine hatred for sin revealed.
10. God is not arbitrary. Righteousness
demands righteousness; justice demands justice. Therefore integrity demands
integrity. God cannot change. He must
punish sin, self-righteousness and evil.
11. God’s penalties from His justice are not
vindictive, they are vindicating.
12. Therefore God has provided the Mosaic
law, one third of which is to condemn us. God has provided not the law but
Jesus Christ to vindicate or justify the one who will adjust to the justice of
God. In other words, from the same integrity of God comes two factors with a
different purpose: the law to condemn and Christ to save.
13. With unchangeable sin, self-righteousness
and evil there is unchangeable condemnation and judgment.
14. However, in grace God provides through
the judgment of Christ on the cross all He demands in condemnation—all He
demands, then, from His integrity.
15. In God Himself spirituality or
personality is supreme, but in His relationship to man God’s integrity is
supreme.
16. Where man is concerned integrity takes
precedence over all other divine attributes.
17. The law reveals the integrity of God in
three ways: Codex #1, the commandments reveal condemnation; Codex #2, the
ordinances reveal salvation; Codex #3, freedom in human government are revealed
from the laws of establishment.
Verse 20 – “Therefore by the deeds of the
law” begins with the inferential conjunction dioti, used to introduce an inferential clause, plus the
prepositional
phrase e)k plus the
ablative of e)rgon, plus a genitive
of relationship of nomoj. The ablative is not the
regular case for expressing means but it does express means here because the
origin or the source is implied. Hence, e)k plus the ablative connotes means here and should be
translated “Therefore by the works of the law.”
“shall no flesh be
justified in his sight” – the negative o)uk plus the subject, the nominative singular sarc for the entire human race,
plus the adjective paj. Then the future
passive indicative of dikaiow which means to
declare righteous, to vindicate, to justify. The future tense is gnomic future,
it is used to state an unqualified, dogmatic fact. The passive voice: the human
race or all flesh receive the action of the verb. No justification, no
vindication from the integrity of God by trying to keep the law. The indicative
mood is declarative for a statement of unqualified, dogmatic doctrine. The
integrity or God cannot and does not declare righteous, cannot and does not
vindicate the works of the law, now or ever. The works of the law represent
arrogant self-righteousness, a distortion of the law; “in his sight” – an
adverb used as an improper preposition, e)nwpion, plus a)utoj used here to
identify the integrity of God and translated “in the presence of him” or “in
the judgment of him.” “Therefore by the works of the law no human being shall
be vindicated in his presence.”
1. The law is incapable of making man
righteous before the integrity of God.
2. It demands a capability, a perfection, an
absolute beyond man’s abilities.
3. The law cannot produce a righteousness in
man which is equivalent to God’s righteousness.
4. The law can only condemn man’s
righteousness, along with man’s sinfulness, as being totally inadequate.
5. The law is an instrument of condemnation,
only the judgment of Christ on the cross is an instrument of salvation.
“for by the law is the
knowledge of sin” – the postpositive conjunctive particle gar, used here to express an
inference. A prepositional phrase, dia plus the
genitive of nomoj—“through the
law.” Plus a predicate nominative e)pignwsij, generally
meaning full knowledge but also consciousness, and the objective genitive
singular from a(martia—“sin.”
Translated “for through the law is a consciousness of sin.”
Translation:
“Therefore by the works of the law no human being shall be justified in his
presence: for through the law is a consciousness of sin.”
1. The Mosaic law is not an instrument of
justification or vindication before the integrity of God—Romans 3:20, 28;
Galatians 2:16.
2. The Mosaic law is an instrument of
condemnation to both Jew and Gentile, i.e. the entire human race—Romans 3:20;
Galatians 3:21-28; 1 Timothy 1:9, 10.
3. The purpose of the law is to curse mankind
with a hopeless curse—Galatians 3:10, 13.
4. The Mosaic law produces a
self-righteousness which is in conflict with the righteousness of God. This
self-righteousness cannot be compared with God’s perfect righteousness which is
imputed to us at the moment we believe in Jesus Christ.
5. Many Jews lost the advantage of the law by
using it as an instrument of salvation—Romans 9:30-33.
6. Because of the integrity of God taking
precedence over the other attributes of God the works of the law cannot provide
justification—Acts 13:39.
7. This failure is illustrated by the rich
young ruler—Matthew 19:16-28.
Verses 21-26, the dikaiosunh of divine integrity.
Verse 21 – “But now the righteousness of
God.” It begins with the enclitic particle de used as an adversative postpositive conjunction. It
introduces a contrast
between self-righteousness produced by keeping the law and imputed
righteousness from the integrity of God. Then the adverb of time, nun, plus the nominative
singular subject dikaiosunh, and with it is qeou, and objective and
possessive genitive.
Dikaiosunh is a second
stage word construction in the organization of the Greek language. In the time
of Homer (9th century B.C.) there were two words, a noun and an
adjective: dikh and dikaioj, simple words
characteristic of the time of Homer. Multi-syllable words did not come into the
Greek language until the time of Attic Greek. In the 5th century
B.C. when thought became much deeper it required some special technical words.
So the Greeks invented a suffix which comes off of the dik base, which meant
righteousness in Homeric Greek. But when the suffix sunh is added you now have moved into abstract thought.
The translation here in the KJV is “But now the righteousness of God.” However,
the word “righteousness” can be correct but it isn’t here. It does not fulfill
the true meaning of the noun, nor does it recognize the tremendous changes that
occurred first in Classical Greek and then later on in Koine Greek. The noun dikh and the adjective dikaioj definitely had a
connotation of righteousness, but even they changed. Dikaioj, for example, by
the time it reached Koine Greek meant many things beside righteousness. It
means the thinking of a judge, among other things. But when you add sunh to this you have a legal
connotation. This is an abstract legal noun and because it is, it is
universally mistranslated in the New Testament. Dikaionunh means fair and equitable in dealing with
others, it meant virtue, justice, integrity, justice as a characteristic of a
judge, justice as the thinking of a judge. It also means the integrity of a
judge. The word connotes not just righteousness but righteousness as a
principle leading to action and thought: thinking action, thinking something
that is correct. This was its general development as far as the Greek language
is concerned, but the Bible adds another problem. In the Bible we find that
with dikaiosunh we have it
related to God—dikaiosunh
qeou. This particular phrase makes a great change in dikaiosunh because this is
the righteousness of God, the justice of God, the integrity of God. Remember
that dikaiosunh is an abstract
noun and always has the connotation of integrity—righteousness as the principle
of God’s integrity, righteousness in relationship with all of the attributes of
God. Used of the believer it is a synonym to e)usebeia, the technical word for maximum adjustment to the
justice of God or total relationship with the integrity of God. Dikaiosunh, used of man,
also has another technical meaning—justification, or possessing part of the
integrity of God. It can be justification or salvation adjustment to the
justice of God. It can be justification or cracking the maturity barrier,
another principle of vindication from the integrity of God. Justification means
that the justice of God is free to bless man without compromising His character
or any attribute. There is no blessing for us ever until we have God’s very own
righteousness.
Dikaiosunh generally is
translated “justice” where contact with man is concerned; qeou is both the possessive and
the subjective genitive. The dikaosunh belongs to God.
The integrity belongs to God and that is our point of contact. So we translate
this not the righteousness of God but the integrity of God, emphasizing divine
righteousness as the principle of integrity and divine justice as the function
of integrity.
1. The subjective genitive of the noun qeoj demands some explanation. A
subjective genitive is one in which the noun in the genitive case produces the
action. That’s why it generally means justice.
2. Under the connotation of possessive
genitive this indicates the integrity of God with emphasis on righteousness.
This is something that belongs to God, it is a principle. The subjective
genitive does something else, it includes man in the principle, whereas the
possessive genitive views God alone, apart from man.
3. The integrity of God, both His
righteousness and justice, is God’s alone. Man is entered into the relationship
with it by means of the work of Christ on the cross.
4. The integrity of God always takes
precedence in God’s dealings with mankind.
5. Either the integrity of God condemns man
or blesses man, depending on man’s attitude toward the cross.
6. First there is condemnation from divine
integrity, then there is salvation or justification for the one who will adjust
to the justice of God. So from the same source comes condemnation and
vindication or justification.
7. For the maladjusted (the one who rejects
Christ as saviour) there is both temporal punitive action and eternal judgment.
8. The forensic connotation of dikaiosunh qeou: it includes
justification or vindication by grace—Romans 5:1.
9. Forensic justification means the
possession of God’s righteousness as the result of adjustment to the justice of
God. And God recognizes that you have His righteousness.
“without the law” –
the adverb xwrij used as an
improper preposition is in the genitive case, plus the genitive of nomoj for the Mosaic law: “apart
from the law.”
“is manifested” –
perfect passive indicative of the verb fanerow, which means to reveal, to make known, to show.
Here it is translated “revealed.” The perfect tense is a dramatic perfect,
emphasizing the results of the action of the verb. The passive voice: the
righteousness belonging to God’s integrity has been revealed. The indicative
mood is declarative for the historical reality for the fact that doctrine is
the means by which God’s integrity is revealed to man. This integrity was
revealed through witnessing in the past.
“being witnessed” –
present passive participle marturew. It means to be
a witness in a trial, to testify in a trail, to confirm facts in a trial. The
present tense is the present tense of duration denoting what has begun in the
past and continues into the present time. The passive voice: God’s
righteousness belonging to His integrity receives the action of the verb. This
is a circumstantial participle for the existence of the canon of scripture.
Every human author in the Old testament was actually in court, giving
testimony, presenting facts about the integrity of God. So the Old Testament
canon is regarded as a great courtroom where the facts will be brought out.
“being witnessed by
the law and the prophets” – the preposition u(po plus the ablative of nomoj, and profhthj also in the
ablative. The ablative is not the regular case for the means or the
instrumental but it may be used when the expression of means is accompanied by
the implication of origin or source. What the Old Testament prophets wrote down
is the origin or source of the presentation of the integrity of God in the Old
Testament.
Translation: “But now
apart from the law the righteousness belonging to the integrity of God has been
revealed, being confirmed by the law and the prophets.”
The doctrine of the
Word of God is the manifestation, the testimony and revelation of the integrity
of God. Doctrine, then, is the verbalizing of God’s integrity. Principle: God
never reveals anything unless it is available. If God reveals His integrity it
means two things: this is our point of reference with God, and it also means we
can have His integrity. We can have it in two forms: a) His righteousness
directly imputed to us at the moment we believe in Christ; b) the action of His
justice blessing us.
Verse 22 – the
appropriation of the righteousness of God through a relationship to the justice
of God. “Even the righteousness of God” – the postpositive conjunctive particle
de, used to insert
an explanation and is translated “That is.” With it is the nominative singular
subject of dikaiosunh which does not
mean righteousness in the human sense, it means one half of the integrity of
God, the guardian of God’s justice. Justice is incorruptible because it is
guarded by God’s righteousness. God’s justice is the guardian of His entire
essence. Plus the subjective genitive singular of qeoj, indicating that we are dealing with a divine
characteristic, the righteousness which belongs to the integrity of God. The
words “by faith of Jesus Christ” tells us how we initially come into contact
with the justice of God and come under the blessing of the integrity of God.
The word for faith is found in a prepositional phrase, dia plus the genitive of pistij for
“faith”—“through faith.” Plus the objective genitive of the two proper nouns
referring to the second person of the Trinity, I(hsouj Xristoj—“in Jesus Christ.”
Translation: “That is the righteousness which
belongs to the integrity of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who
believe.” We enter into relationship with the integrity of God at the moment of
salvation adjustment to the justice of God. Until then we are spiritually dead
and have no relationship with God.
Then begins a short
parenthesis. At the beginning of the parenthesis which explains that all
unbelievers, both Jew and Gentile alike, those with the law or without the law,
are all spiritually dead. So whether Jew or Gentile spiritual death belongs to
all of us by being born into the human race.
“for there is no
difference” – the explanatory use of the postpositive conjunctive particle gar. It can be translated “for”
or “you see” or “for you see.” Then the present active indicative of e)imi plus the strong negative o)uk. The present tense is a
static present for a condition perpetually existing in the status quo of
spiritual death. The active voice: mankind under spiritual death produces the
action. The indicative mood with the negative indicates negative reality—all
unbelievers are spiritually dead in that they have no relationship with God.
Plus the predicate nominative singular from the noun diastolh, which means
difference or distinction. It is used here for distinction between Jew and
Gentile unbelievers. They are all maladjusted to the justice of God, they have
no relationship with the intregrity of God, there are therefore spiritually
dead—with or without the law.
Translation: “That is,
the righteousness which belongs to the integrity of God through faith in Jesus
Christ for all who believe: (for there is no distinction:”
Verse 23 – the
necessity for the dikaiosunh of God. “For all
have sinned” – the enclitic particle gar, which is both
enclitic and postpositive, and is used as the explanatory conjunction, plus the
nominative masculine plural subject from the adjective paj, referring to the entire
human race. The parenthesis states the basic concept of hamartiology: all
members of the human race have an old
sin nature at birth and therefore express this fact through personal sin. So we
have n aorist active indicative of the verb a(martanw. It means to miss the mark, to do wrong or to sin.
The aorist tense is constative, it contemplates the action of the verb in its
entirety. It takes all of the sin of the human race from the time of the fall
to the end of the Millennium and gathers it up into one entirety. All members
of the human race are sinners. The active voice: the human race as the subject
produces the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative
representing the verbal action from the viewpoint of absolute dogmatic reality.
The entire human race sinned when Adam sinned, therefore the human race is born
with an old sin nature, and the manifestation of that fact is in personal sin.
“and come short of the
glory of God)” – the connective kai, “and”, plus the
present middle indicative of the verb u(sterew which means to miss or to fail to reach, to be
excluded from something, to come short of something, or to fall short. The
present tense is a static present it represents a condition which perpetually
exists in the human race. The middle voice is the indirect middle emphasising
the agent (the human race) as producing the action of the verb rather than
participating in the results of the action. The objective genitive doca, “glory,” refers to the
essence or attributes of God, plus the possessive genitive of qeoj—God possesses this glory.
This ends the parenthesis begun in the previous verse.
Verses 24-25, the
mechanics of the dikaiosunh of God.
Verse 24 – “Being
justified freely by his grace.” The present passive participle of the verb dikaiow means to treat
as just, to justify, to vindicate, to make righteous, to validate. The present
tense is a static present for a condition which perpetually exists after
salvation. The passive voice: the believer at the moment he receives Christ as
saviour actually receives this action—he receives God’s perfect righteousness,
one half of divine integrity. The participle is circumstantial, qualifying the
principle of salvation adjustment to the justice of God. The adverb dwrean means
gratuitously, without payment. The instrumental of means xarij means “grace.” Plus the
possessive genitive singular from the intensive pronoun a)utoj emphasising who
owns the integrity of God: it belongs to God. Translation: “Receiving
justification[7] without
payment by his grace.”
The mechanics of justification, Genesis
15:6—“Now he [Abraham] had believed,” the hiphil perfect of the verb amen. The hiphil stem is causative
active voice and it indicates the fact that while we do not know the details,
and while there was no written canon of scripture, Abraham had been positive at
the point of God-consciousness and express Positive volition at the point of
gospel hearing. It is important to recognize that positive volition at God-consciousness
gives the responsibility to God to reveal the gospel. With Abraham this was
before the Old Testament was written, and God accepted the responsibility of
revealing Himself, the fact that there would be a saviour, so that the hiphil
stem says Abraham was motivated to believe in Jesus Christ as He was revealed
in Old Testament times. We do not know the details of how the gospel was
revealed, simply that Abraham had believed. The perfect tense is a completed
action. He had believed “in Jehovah” [Jesus Christ], which is the preposition be plus Jehovah. Result: “and he [God the Father] had imputed it” – qal
imperfect of chashab which means to
credit to someone’s account, to impute, to provide credit—“to him for
righteousness”: the noun tsedaqah
which is exactly the same as dikaiosunh.
“through redemption” –
dia plus the
genitive of a)polutrwsij [dia plus the accusative: because of; dia plus the genitive: through, and sometimes by],
“through the redemption.” A)polutrwisij
means
to buy back slaves or captives, to free by paying a ransom for a slave or a
captive.[8]
“that is in Christ
Jesus” – e)n plus the
locative of Xristoj and I)hsou. The verb is
inserted because in front of this is the definite article. The definite is the
descriptive genitive singular, thj, used as a
relative pronoun and calls for a verb.
Translation:
“Receiving justification [vindication] without payment by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”
Verse 25 – “Whom God
has set forth to be a propitiation.” The accusative singular relative pronoun o(j. The antecedent for this
relative pronoun is the Lord Jesus Christ. Then the nominative singular subject
qeoj plus the
definite article—“Whom the God.” The definite article indicates someone who is
familiar to the readers.
“has set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood” – should be translated, “has publicly
displayed by his blood[9]
as the mercy seat through faith [in Christ].”
“through faith” –
prepositional phrase, dia plus the
genitive of pistij, minus the
definite article. The absence of the definite article emphasizes the
qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its identity. Faith is emphasised as
the mechanics of salvation since the mechanics of blessing from the justice of
God is always grace. Principle: Faith never subtracts from the efficacious work
of Christ. Any work that man can do subtracts from the efficacious work of
Christ.
“in his blood” – this
prepositional phrase is out of place. This is e)n plus the instrumental of a(ima, plus the descriptive
genitive singular of a)utoj used as a
possessive pronoun—“by his blood.” The instrumental of cause denotes the
original factor from the instrumental of means. The agency is the blood of
Christ and it is the original cause of salvation. Remember that the blood of
Christ includes propitiation, redemption and reconciliation, the work of Christ
in being judged. The prepositional phrase belongs after the verb, rather than
after “faith.”
“to declare his
righteousness” – in the English there is what appears to be an infinitive, but
this is not an exact translation; there is no verb in any form, including the
infinitive in that phrase. Instead there is the preposition e)ij plus the accusative
singular from the noun e)ndeicij which means a
demonstration—“for a demonstration.” With it is the subjective genitive of dikaiosunh, the
righteousness which is one half of God’s integrity.
1. The integrity of God must be consistent.
This consistency demands function and interrelationship between divine
righteousness and divine justice.
2. There must be no compromise or
inconsistency in the function of divine integrity. To avoid compromise and
inconsistency a principle evolves that becomes axiomatic: divine justice can
only bless divine righteousness.
3. Since all divine blessing originates from
the justice of God, and since the justice of God cannot bless sinful mankind,
it is necessary for God in grace to provide His righteousness as the recipient
of all blessing.
4. Reason: righteousness demands
righteousness and justice demands justice in the function of the integrity of
God toward mankind.
5. God cannot accept anything less than
perfect righteousness, and God cannot bless anything less than perfect
righteousness.
6. This dramatizes the importance of the
imputation of divine righteousness to the believer at the moment of salvation.
7. Faith in Christ is instant adjustment to
the justice of God at salvation.
8. Continuous and persistent learning of
doctrine under one’s right pastor is the means of maturity adjustment to the
justice of God.
9. Divine integrity includes two divine
attributes: righteousness, the principle of divine integrity, and justice, the
function of divine integrity.
10. The justice of God administers what the
righteousness of God demands.
11. Therefore the justice of God cannot bless
unless the recipient has a righteousness equivalent to God’s righteousness.
This righteousness is a monopoly of God.
12. The justice of God can only bless the
possessor of perfect divine righteousness.
13. The basis for divine blessing to mankind
is the imputation of divine righteousness to the believer at the instance of
salvation.
14. Therefore justification must precede all
other blessings from the justice of God.
15. Justification only occurs at the moment
of faith in Christ or salvation adjustment to the justice of God. Justification
is the result of imputed righteousness at the moment we believe in Christ.
16. When the believer receives the imputed
righteousness of God the justice of God performs a judicial function known as
justification or simply recognizing His own righteousness in the new
believer—that’s all justification is.
17. God recognises His righteousness as
righteous wherever it is found.
18. The possession of divine righteousness
through grace imputation at salvation is the prerequisite for all other divine
blessing.
19. With the imputation of divine
righteousness and resultant justification all other divine blessings, temporal
and eternal, above and beyond ultimate sanctification are potential.
20. This potential of blessing or advantages
from the integrity of God is fulfilled through the daily function of GAP and
resultant maximum doctrine resident in the soul.
21. This is known as maturity adjustment to the justice of God and/or total relationship with the integrity of God.
22. Not only does this status result in
blessings or advantages from the justice of God but also capacity to enjoy
those blessings and advantages.
“for the remission of
sins that are past” – a prepositional phrase, dia plus the accusative singular of the noun paresij which means
passing over. And dia plus the
accusative should never be translated “for”; it is “because.” Then an articular
perfect active participle from the verb proginomai. The participle is used here is an
ascriptive sense as an adjective and it means “previously committed.” Plus the
subjective genitive plural from a(marthma, meaning
transgressions or sins, and it refers to sins committed before the cross. God
passed over judging those sins until they could be collected at the cross.
“through the
forebearance of God” – e)n plus the
instrumental of a)noxh which means
clemency, holding back, or delay in judgment. Then the ablative of source from qeoj. The ablative of source
implies the origin of divine clemency or delay in judgment of all sins prior to
the cross. The justice of God held up judgment until Christ could die on the
cross. This means that there was a delay in the judgment of all the sins in the
human race until Christ could be judged for them on the cross.
Translation: “Whom the
God [the Father] has publicly displayed by his blood as the mercy seat through
faith in Christ, for a demonstration of his righteousness because of the
passing over of previously committed sins, because of the delay in judgment
[clemency] from the God.”
Verse 26 – the
demonstration of integrity without compromise. “To declare, I say, at this time
his righteousness.” The prepositional phrase proj plus the accusative singular from e)ndeicij, and with the
definite article it means “For the demonstration.” Then the descriptive
genitive of dikaiosunh connoting here
the integrity of God with emphasis on His righteousness, since righteousness
must be provided for us before we can have any blessing from God. The
possessive genitive singular from the intensive pronoun a)utoj is used as a
possessive pronoun—“his righteousness.” Then “at this time” is e)n plus the temporal adverb nun, plus xairoj in the locative
meaning a decisive or crucial point of time. The locative singular of the
definite article is used as a demonstrative pronoun here. The corrected
translation: “at this present time of crisis.” The present time of crisis
refers to the Church Age. It is a crisis time because it is the time of the
calling out of the royal family of God. God’s integrity which was consistent in
the past continues to be consistent after the cross. The justice of God which
judged all of our sins and the sins of all of the past dispensations before the
cross will judge all of the sins of future dispensations. Hence, a
demonstration of His perfect integrity continues into the present time of
crisis.
“that he might be
just” – the preposition e)ij plus the
accusative singular of the definite article, plus the present active infinitive
of e)imi, is a Greek
idiom for purpose. The present tense of the infinitive is a static present,
perpetual circumstances are involved. The active voice: God produces the
action; specifically the integrity of God produces the action. Plus the
accusative singular of general reference from the intensive pronoun a)utoj used to
emphasise the identity of God in terms of our point of reference, i.e. the
justice of God. Also the accusative singular of the adjective dikaioj, used for the
integrity of God as a whole, or part of the integrity of God. Here it is used
for one half of the integrity of God: justice. Therefore it is translated, “in
order that he might be just.”
1. In this dispensation after the cross God
maintains His perfect integrity just as He did in the dispensation before the
cross—the Age of Israel.
2. God’s justice is the number one priority
in His relationship with mankind.
3. Therefore divine justice must be
uncompromised in establishing a relationship with mankind.
4. The cross accomplishes this fact because
the justice of God judged our sins—past, present and future—when they were
poured out on Christ.
5. When Christ was bearing our sins on the
cross the justice of God was judging all of them.
6. While judging those sins on the cross the
justice of God is protected from compromise in providing justification for
anyone who believes in Christ.
7. Justice pronounces the penalty which
divine righteousness demands.
8. But divine righteousness is satisfied with the judgment of man’s sins on the cross, and therefore divine righteousness does not complain when imputed to those who believe in Christ.
“and the justifier of
him which believeth in Jesus” – the ascensive use of the conjunction kai, meaning “even.” The
present active participle of the verb dikaiow, meaning to vindicate, to justify, to declare
righteous. The present tense is a customary present denoting what habitually
occurs when anyone believes in Christ. It never varies, it is always the same.
The active voice: God produces the action of the verb from His justice. The
justice of God justifies the person who believes in Christ. The participle is
temporal and it should be translated “even when he declares righteous [or,
justifies].” Next is the accusative masculine singular from definite article
used as the direct object. The definite article is now used as a relative
pronoun and hence, anyone or by means of. Plus the prepositional phrase e)k plus the ablative of means
from pistij, plus the objective
genitive—“from the source of faith in Jesus,” meaning to have faith in Jesus.
Translation: “For the
demonstration of his integrity at this present time of crisis [Church Age]: in
order that he might be just, even when he justifies anyone who has faith in
Jesus.”
1. The only way the unrighteous sinner can be
pronounced righteous by the justice of God is to have the righteousness of God.
2. The only way to have the righteousness of
God is to believe in Jesus Christ.
3. Believing in Christ is the mechanics of
salvation adjustment to the justice of God.
4. Through grace mechanics (faith in Christ)
the justice of God is free to provide the other half of divine integrity: God’s
perfect righteousness.
5. Having imputed divine righteousness the justice
of God pronounces the believer righteous—tantamount to justification.
6. Justification is vindication provided from
the integrity of God.
7. This vindication is provided at the moment
of faith in Christ. It includes imputation of divine righteousness and
pronouncement of the fact that that righteousness is imputed.
8. The justice of God imputes divine
righteousness to the believer and vindicates or pronounces that same believer
perfectly righteous, therefore qualified for further blessing.
9. We are righteous because we have God’s
perfect righteousness, not because of any self-righteousness on our part.
10. Therefore God has found a way to save us
without compromising His integrity. The foundation of all divine blessing is
the imputation of divine righteousness to the believer at the moment of eternal
salvation.
11. Righteousness demands righteousness,
justice demands justice, holiness demands holiness, integrity demands
integrity.
12. At the point of faith in Christ the
justice of God acts by providing His own righteousness and then declaring His
own righteousness to be satisfactory and/or vindicated.
1. Imputed righteousness from the justice of
God is the foundation on which the superstructure of blessings or advantages
from which the justice of God is provided.
2. In other words, divine justice cannot
bless mankind apart from imputed righteousness.
3. Imputed righteousness from the justice of
God must precede direct blessing from the justice of God.
4. At the point of faith in Christ the
believer receives his righteousness from God, not only for his justification
but for all future potential blessing.
5. Hence divine righteousness imputed is not
only absolutely necessary for immediate justification but also a prerequisite
for all blessing from the justice of God.
6. God can only bless perfection which is
compatible with His integrity.
7. The imputation of the righteousness of God
through faith in Christ gives us that compatibility with divine essence so
necessary as the foundation for all blessing.
Justification: the
magnificence of divine integrity at salvation, verse 27-31.
Verse 27 –
justification eliminates human arrogance. “Where is boasting then?” The
interrogative adverb of place, pou, is used in
rhetorical questions which expect a negative answer. It is generally translated
“Where is.” This is a debater’s rhetorical question which is not the same as
our English rhetorical question. Then the inferential particle o)un which connotes that what it
introduces is an inference from what precedes. Plus the predicate nominative
from kauxhsij which means
boasting. The definite article with kauxhsij is used as a
demonstrative pronoun. “Where then is that boasting?”
1. Boasting is an expression of arrogance
where either a system of self-righteousness or a system of human works has
intruded into the plan of God.
2. Boasting is arrogance plus
self-righteousness plus the production of self-righteousness—human good.
Boasting is also blasphemous regarding the integrity of God.
3. God’s righteousness and man’s self-righteousness are mutually exclusive. There is no place in any of the adjustments to the justice of God for man’s self-righteousness, man’s pleasing personality, man’s self-effacement.
1. Since boasting is an expression of
arrogance, self-righteousness, human good, it is a sign of maladjustment to the
justice of God and/or ignorance of the integrity of God.
2. Self-righteousness, then, is an arrogant
fantasy, a rationalization of comparing one’s abilities or strengths with
someone else’s weaknesses. Arrogant people are totally self-centred.
Furthermore, self-centred people are incapable of having capacity for life,
capacity for happiness.
3. Self-righteousness directed toward God is the blasphemous assumption that God’s righteousness is not enough. Therefore self-righteousness tries to help God on the one hand, and on the other hand, unable to help God by sinfulness, seeks to justify his unrighteousness as promoting and glorifying divine righteousness.
4. It is blasphemous to assume that either
human self-righteousness or unrighteousness can promote the integrity of God.
5. Divine integrity has always existed in
perfect and does not need help from mankind, the latest of creatures in
history.
6. Remember that the
righteousness of God is divine love for His integrity.
7. Since integrity demands integrity, perfect
righteousness demands perfect equivalent righteousness.
8. God demands integrity for blessing. This
integrity includes imputed divine righteousness at salvation, maximum doctrine
resident in the soul at spiritual maturity.
9. This is why adjustment to the justice of
God at all stages is so important and the key to understanding a grace
relationship with God.
10. God in grace provides all that His
integrity demands from the human race. He starts the ball rolling at salvation
by providing imputed divine righteousness and He follows up with doctrine plus
a system of grace perception so that doctrine can be transferred to the
believer’s soul. Therefore, boasting is excluded.
“It is excluded” –
aorist passive indicative from the verb e)kkleiw which means to shut off, to exclude, or to shut
out. The aorist tense is a dramatic aorist, it is used to state a present reality
with the certitude of a past event. The idiom is a device for emphasis.
Therefore it even becomes a gnomic aorist for a fact or a truth of doctrine
regarded as so fixed in its certainty as to be axiomatic. Therefore the aorist
is used to describe an actual occurrence. We translate this aorist, not as we
usually translate the aorist tense with a past tense in the English, but we
translate it with a present tense—“It is excluded.” The passive voice: boasting
receives the action of the verb—shut out, excluded. The indicative mood is
declarative for a statement of dogmatic assertion.
The exclusion of boasting by the integrity of
God
1. The integrity of God has always existed in a state of absolute and total perfection.
2. Therefore there is nothing that man can
add or detract from the integrity of God.
3. There is nothing man can do or fail to do
to cancel the integrity of God.
4. There is nothing man can say or think to
compromise the integrity of God.
5. Man’s self-righteousness does not glorify
God. To the contrary, God’s integrity condemns man’s self-righteousness.
6. There is no point in either angelic or
human history where the integrity of God is compromised or gains anything from
man’s personality or self-righteousness or system of works.
7. No one can establish or promote God’s
righteousness. No one can add anything to the integrity of God. Boasting is
excluded.
8. The working part of the integrity of God
is justice. God’s justice gets all the credit and does all the work. God’s
justice condemned our sins when Christ was bearing them on the cross and this
is the basis of our eternal salvation. The work is accomplished by God.
9. God’s justice provides blessing for the
mature believer. This is the basis for blessing in time and reward in eternity.
This blessing comes from maximum doctrine resident in the soul. And how did it
get there? GRACE apparatus for perception.
10. Therefore no one can establish God’s
righteousness and no one can add anything to God’s justice. This is the
fundamental principle of grace.
11. God therefore can add something to our
integrity, but we cannot add anything to God’s integrity. This is the
difference between law and grace.
“By what law?” – dia plus the interrogative
pronoun poioj. Notice that poioj is used in a direct
question, and also there is the genitive singular of the noun nomoj—dia plus the genitive, dia poiou nomou. Nomoj here means a rule or
principle governing one’s action. It doesn’t refer to the Mosaic law here. “By
what kind of law?” or “By what kind of principle?” The question is: What
principle excludes boasting, arrogance, self-righteousness.
“of works?” – the
subjective genitive plural from e)rgon. It should be
correctly translated in English, in view of poioj, “that principle of works?” The principle of human
works is contrary to the integrity of God, as well as the grace of God. There
are no works involved in adjusting to the justice of God.
“Nay: but by the law
of faith” – the word “nay” is simply the negative o)uxi, a strengthened form of o)uk or a strong negative to answer a question, followed
by an adversative conjunction, a)lla, to set up a
positive after a negative; to set up a contrast between the negative followed
by the positive. Then dia plus the
genitive of nomoj, used again for
a principle—“Definitely not: by the principle …” Then the descriptive genitive
of pistij, “of faith.”
Translation: “Where
then is boasting? It is excluded. By what principle? that of works? Definitely
not: but by the principle of faith.”
1. The law or principle of faith is that by
which the human race enters into a relationship with the integrity of God on
terms of grace.
2. The first blessing of the justice of God
is divine righteousness imputed and resultant justification.
3. The means of attainment is faith, faith in
Jesus Christ. Faith must have an object since faith has no merit in itself.
4. The object of salvation is Jesus Christ, hence salvation adjustment to the justice of God is accomplished in the Lord Jesus.
5. All of the believing in the world secures
nothing but condemnation from the integrity of God. However, the tiniest bit of
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ secures eternal salvation.
6. There is no merit in having faith, the
merit lies in the object of faith. It is believing in Jesus Christ that
provides eternal life.
7. Therefore faith is not something we do
[principle of works] but the channel by which we appropriate what God has done
for us.
Postulate: God found a way to bless us from His integrity without compromising His perfect essence
1. God did not do this from human
sentimentality or emotional attraction to pleasant human personality.
2. Man often concludes from his arrogance that self-righteousness and boasting that he has done something to please God, or has made God fall in love with him, is really the issue.
3. Under the law or principle of works man
strives for a status which is attractive or pleasing to God.
4. This striving of self-righteousness
eliminates the principle of faith because in effect it rejects the integrity of
God.
5. The provision of the integrity of God is a
grace provision compatible with the essence of God.
6. The self-righteousness of man is part of
the law or principle of works (works righteousness) which produces human
boasting as a system of blasphemy to the perfect integrity of God.
7. Therefore the integrity of God is the
issue. God found a way to bless man from His justice without compromising any
of His attributes of divine essence.
8. Justification by faith is an action of divine integrity whereby God is free to provide eternal salvation from the source of His justice.
9. The grace principle of justification by faith eliminates any boasting or self-righteousness, the entire system of human works operative from the garden.
10. Boasting erroneously concludes divine approbation for any system of self-righteousness.
11. But the law of faith recognizes that God loves His righteousness, not human works.
12. God loves His plan, not man’s plan. God loves His works, not the works of man. Response to the plan of God and entrance into a relationship with God is based in His integrity, and at the point of faith in Jesus Christ we have our first adjustment to the justice of God.
Principle
1. The principle of the law of works is evil, a Satanic design presented to man in the garden as the alternate to perfect environment from the integrity of God.
What past Bible teachers have called the dispensation of innocence is not that at all, it is direct blessing from the integrity of God totally apart from man’s merit and totally related to his creation. Man was innocent at all. He had certain things he didn’t have to know. He didn’t have to know anything about evil, about human good and evil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden because in his creation relationship the integrity of God only gave man information as to what he needed. In the perfect environment of the garden the only thing he had to know about good and evil, the whole system of Satanic function in world history, was to stay away from it—do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was a statement from the integrity of God. As long as man observed that statement he had a relationship with the integrity of God based on creation. Once man rejected that statement and partook of the forbidden fruit he no longer had the creation relationship with the integrity of God. Perfect environment is not the answer to anything. Man cannot produce perfect environment, only the integrity of God can do that.
2. This law of works was called in the garden was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
3. Good and evil are synonymous terms under the law of works.
4. The law of works implies that man by man’s talents, self-righteousness, good deeds, personality improvement, advances the integrity of God.
5. But man does not glorify the integrity of God; only God can glorify the integrity of God.
6. The justice of God does the work. The justice of God judged the sins of the human race when Christ was bearing them on the cross.
7. Consequently we respond in a non-meritorious manner—the law of faith, the principle of faith.
8. The justice of God provides temporal and eternal blessing for the believer with maximum doctrine resident in the soul.
9. It is always the integrity of God doing the work. Boasting and self-righteousness are excluded. Man’s works are totally excluded.
10. Through maximum adjustment to the justice of God the believer can glorify God, but the believer cannot glorify or promote God or demote God by his own actions. We can neither promote nor demote the integrity of God.
Verse 28 – the principle of faith obviously excludes the works of the law. “Therefore we conclude that man is justified by faith” – the word for ‘conclude’ is a
present middle indicative of the verb logizomai. The meaning of this word in Classical Greek is an act of thought according to strict logical rules. In commerce and business was used in the sense of crediting something to one’s account. However, with the preposition e)ij here the meaning is changed slightly. It connotes the scale or currency used to estimate the value of an object. Also from the Attic Greek, men such as Plato used the word for non-emotional thinking—which parallels the idea of logical thinking. Logical thinking excludes emotion. Demosthenes in his speeches used this verb to express the concept of facts as they are. Here in this verse it means to conclude logically or to logically infer. We translate it, “We conclude.” The present tense is a customary present denoting what habitually occurs when the doctrine of divine integrity is combined with the doctrine of propitiation to form a logical conclusion. The middle voice is the indirect middle emphasizing the agent, the believer with maximum doctrine in the soul producing the action. The indicative mood is declarative for an unqualified assertion of fact. With this is the postpositive conjunctive particle gar used as an inferential conjunction. It is an inferential conjunction used in the case of a self-evident conclusion—“We conclude then.” Plus the accusative singular of general reference from the noun a)nqrwpoj, referring to mankind. The accusative of general reference is the subject of the infinitive and we have a present passive infinitive of dikaiow, meaning to be vindicated or to be justified; meaning to have the righteousness of God and therefore qualified for blessing from the justice of God. This is a customary present tense, it denotes what habitually occurs when a person believes in Christ, making instant adjustment to the justice of God at salvation. The passive voice: mankind receives the action of the verb at the point of faith in Christ. This is the infinitive of actual result. Plus the instrumental singular of pistij, used here is the active sense of believing—“We conclude, then, that a man is justified by faith.”
“without the deeds of the law” – the adverb xwrij used as an improper preposition, plus the genitive plural of e)rgon, “apart from the works.” Plus the possessive genitive singular of nomoj. It was the law being used to produce self-righteousness at that time.
Translation: “We conclude, then, that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”
Justification is the judicial act of God whereby He recognizes His very own righteousness, even when it is given to anyone who believes in Christ. Justification is God’s recognition of imputed righteousness at the moment of faith in Christ.
Principle
1. Justification by faith means salvation adjustment to the justice of God by one way only: faith in Christ.
2. The moment anyone believes in Christ he has attained or accomplished instant adjustment to the justice of God.
3. The justice of God immediately imputes one half of God’s integrity, namely God’s righteousness; and it is credited to our account totally apart from human works.
4. Having received this divine righteousness from the justice of God the believer is pronounced righteous, vindicated, justified.
5. The works of the law represent any system of salvation by works.
6. Salvation by works cannot provide instant adjustment to the justice of God.
7. There are seven categories of salvation by works which are practiced at the present time. a) Verbal works which adds to faith in Christ: repent, confess, beg God to save you, plead the blood, invite Christ into your heart, acknowledge Christ publicly; b) Ritual works: circumcision, baptism, and rarely but occasionally the Lord’s table; c) Psychological works: appeal to the emotion, raise your hand, walk the isle, etc.; d) Corporate works: joining the church for salvation, tithing or giving money, some system a church sets up; e) Religious works: keep the law, do penance, practice the Lordship of Christ, associate your decisions with throwing a faggot on the fire, some candle-light service, taking vows, the functions of asceticism; f) Behaviouristic works: giving up something obnoxious, following a set of taboos, change your personality; g) Emotional works: any system of ecstatics, emotional stimulation being added, speaking in tongues, weeping tears at the altar, etc.
Verses 29-30, adjustment to the justice of God removes all racial issues.
A brief synopsis
1. The reality of history, the nature of the prophecy of races—Genesis chapter 10, the problem of arrogance and self-righteousness as a result of success, have motivated people to make an issue out of their racial origin.
2. However there is no such thing as a pure race any longer in history.
3. As illustrated by the Jews who have the best genealogy of all, the two tribes which came from Joseph are half Gentile.
4. Not only does the Bible removes the racial issue but the Constitution of the United States makes no issue of race.
5. Therefore racial issues are generally the result of reversionism and evil. The so-called minority problem is an evil solution to the racial problem.
6. The integrity of God and relationship to the integrity of God is the true issue, not race.
7. In this dispensation whether one is a Jew or Gentile, privileged or underprivileged, is never the issue. The only issue is adjustment to the justice of God under three categories: salvation, rebound, spiritual maturity.
8. All races are eligible for adjustment to the justice of God, and all races can do it.
Verse 29 – “Is he the God of the Jews only?” This is an elliptical question which begins the discussion of racial issue and privileges of race. It begins with the disjunctive particle h) which separates opposite race which are mutually exclusive, translated “or.” Then the objective genitive plural of I)oudaioj, plus the predicate nominative singular o( qeoj, plus the neuter monon used as an adverb limiting the action of the one producing the action, namely God. God is not limited to one race in the concept of blessing from His integrity. “Or is the God the God of the Jews only?”
“is he not also of the Gentiles?” – the strong negative adverb o)uxi. This word is used as an interrogative word in questions that expect an affirmative answer. Plus the adjunctive use of kai, translated “also.” Then the objective genitive plural from e)qnoj, used here for the Gentiles.
“Yes, of the Gentiles also” – the affirmative particle nai, used for a positive answer to a question that already expects a positive answer, plus the adjunctive use of kai for “also,” and the objective genitive plural from e)qnoj—“Yes, he is the God of the Gentiles also.”
Translation: “Or is the God the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, he is also the God of the Gentiles.”
Notice the distinction between the privileged and apparently non-privileged races. The Jews as the fourth race are unique. The various Gentile races have had their ups and downs, mostly downs historically. Therefore there seems to be some prejudice in the matter.
1. Race is never the issue, only the integrity of God. God is not God if He provides blessing for one race only, or for one race to the exclusion of other races.
2. The very foundation of the Jewish race was total relationship with the integrity of God. Abraham had maximum adjustment to the justice of God before he became the father of the Jewish race.
3. The very foundation of the Jewish race known as Israel was a total relationship with the integrity of God—Moses had maximum adjustment to the justice of God. So the race and the nation are related to two ultra-super-grace believers who had total relationship with the integrity of God.
4. Everything God has promised and everything God has done for the Jews is also available to the Gentiles, for every blessing from God to man is from the source of His integrity. The functioning part of His integrity is divine justice.
5. Jesus Christ who is the God of Israel is also the Prince-ruler of the Church which contains Gentiles as well as Jews.
6. Gentiles who adjusted to the justice were blessed from the integrity of God in the Old Testament.
7. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of the Church, the royal family of God in this dispensation.
8. The source of blessing for all members of the human race is directly related to the integrity of God; and no race is excepted, any race can reach maturity adjustment to the justice of God.
9. Therefore no race has any advantage over any other race, except as that race exploits the grace of God through adjustment to the justice of God.
10. Advantage is blessing from that part of the integrity of God known as the justice of God.
____________________
1. Since the God of the Jews is also the God of the Gentiles there is a common way of having relationship with the integrity of God for all races.
2. Jesus Christ is the only saviour.
3. The justice of God judged the sins of all races.
4. Therefore both Jew and Gentile adjust to the justice of God at salvation in exactly the same manner—faith in Christ.
5. Since therefore God saves the Jew and the Gentile in the same way neither the law nor any other accoutrements of race can save.
6. Since the law cannot be the source of salvation adjustment to the justice of God neither can any work or plan or talent or function of man have anything to do with salvation.
7. Since the law was given exclusively to the Jews at the foundation of their nation, and since circumcision was given to the Jews at the beginning of their race, neither the law nor circumcision can have anything to do with salvation adjustment to the justice of God.
8. For all races, peoples, conglomerates adjustment to the justice of God at salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ.
9. At the moment of faith in Christ justification is the judicial act of the justice of God whereby divine righteousness is imputed to the believer and God recognizes His own righteousness with the pronouncement of justification. He does it no matter what the race.
10. Salvation adjustment to the justice of God is based on God’s righteousness, not on man’s self-righteousness or works righteousness.
11. In other words, salvation is the judicial process of the grace of God.
12. Justice and righteousness, the attributes of divine integrity, are the basis of our eternal salvation.
Verse 30 – a protasis. “Seeing it is one God” – the conditional particle e)iper [e)i == used in combination with per to introduce a first class condition. E)i in
itself plus any tense in the indicative mood is the way a first class condition is introduced. Combined with per it can be literally translated “If in deed,” but e)iper really means “since,” introducing a first class condition as reality.] Plus the predicate nominative of the numeral adjective e(ij, referring to the fact that God is one in essence, not that there is one God in person. Three persons; all one in essence. In other words, it emphasizes here that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have co-equal, co-existent righteousness and justice. Plus the nominative subject qeoj with the nominative singular definite article o(. We translate this, “Since the Godhead is one.” That means one in essence, one in integrity.
“which shall justify the circumcision by faith” – the nominative singular from the relative pronoun o(j whose antecedent is God, and therefore shouldn’t be “which,” it is “who.” Then the future active indicative of the verb dikaiow which means here to justify—“who shall justify.” The future tense is a gnomic future for a dogmatic statement of an absolute doctrine which occurs at the moment of salvation. The active voice: the justice of God produces the action of the verb. The indicative mood is declarative for a dogmatic statement of doctrine. Plus the accusative singular direct object from the noun peritomh—“circumcision.” Plus a prepositional phrase, e)k plus the ablative of pistij. The ablative is not the regular case to express means, it is only used to express means when the original source is implied.
“and the uncircumcision through faith” – dia plus the genitive of pistij this time.
Translation: “Since the Godhead is one in essence [or, integrity], who shall justify the circumcision [the Jew] by faith, and the uncircumcision [Gentile] through [that same] faith.”
Verse 31 – the conclusion of the apodosis: faith in Christ does not abrogate or cancel the true purpose of the law in condemning sinand pointing to Christ as the only means of salvation. There is no conflict between justification by faith and the true purpose of the law.
“Do we then make void the law through faith?” The accusative singular direct object of nomoj in the emphatic position. The apodosis is going to deal with the Mosaic law since it has been distorted. Then the inferential conjunction o)un denoting that what it introduces is the result of the inference from the protasis. Plus the present active indicative of katargew, which means to nul and void, to cancel. The present tense is a perfective present used to denote the continuation of existing results. The active voice: the person who believes in Christ allegedly produces the action of the verb. The indicative mood is the interrogative indicative. Then the prepositional phrase dia plus the genitive of pistij. Translation: “Do we cancel the law through that same faith?” The true function of the Mosaic law has never been cancelled, has never been abrogated through distortion. Many people have distorted the law into a system of self-righteousness. That does not cancel thr true purpose of the law which is fulfilled when anyone sees from the law that he is a sinner, he is condemned, he is spiritually dead, and he responds by believing in Christ.
“God forbid” – mh genoito, “Definitely not.”
“yea, we establish the law” – the word “yea” has no meaning here. We have the adversative conjunction a)lla after a negative to introduce a contrast in the form of a positive declaration. In other words, eliminate the negative and emphasise the positive is what a)lla does. “On the contrary” is the correct translation. Then the accusative singular direct object of nomoj, plus the present active indicative of the verb i(stanw, an Attic Greek verb similar to Koine i(sthmi, but not the same. i(sthmi meant to stand; i(stanw always meant to establish. This is a perfective present tense, it denotes the continuation of the existing results. The active voice: the believer who attains salvation adjustment to the justice of God establishes the true purpose of the Mosaic law. The declarative indicative mood is for a dogmatice statement of doctrine: “on the contrary we establish the law.”
Translation: “Do we cancel the law through that same faith? Definitely not: on the contrary we establish the law.”
[1] See the Doctrine of the Priest nation.
[2] See the Doctrine of The Importance of Doctrine.
[3] See the Doctrine of the Old Sin Nature.
[4] See the Doctrine of the Sins of the Tongue.
[5] See the Doctrine of Evil
[6] See the Doctrine of Murder.
[7] See the Doctrine of Justification.
[8] See the Doctrine of Redemption.
[9] See the Doctrine of the Blood.