Romans 3:5-8

Romans: Romans 3:5-God is Justified in Exercising His Righteous Indignation upon Jewish Unrighteousness

In Romans 3:5, Paul poses another question to the unsaved Jew that rejects the idea that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation against Jewish unbelievers since their unrighteousness makes conspicuous God’s righteousness. Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “But ” is the “adversative” use of the conjunction de ( deV) (deh), which introduces another set of questions that anticipate another objection of Paul’s opponents, the Judaizers that are in response to his statement in Romans 3:4. In Romans 3:3-4, Paul teaches that Jewish unfaithfulness does not render inoperative God’s faithfulness to Israel and that God will be vindicated when He judges unsaved mankind. In Romans 3:5, Paul addresses another objection of the Judaizers as to whether or not God is justified in exercising His righteous indignation towards the unsaved Jews when their unrighteousness magnifies the righteousness of God. He addresses this objection since it could be implied from Romans 3:3-4 that if the unrighteousness of unregenerate Jews serves to demonstrate the righteousness of God, is not God unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness? Robert Mounce commenting on Romans 3:5-6, writes, “It could be implied from verses 3-4 that the unrighteousness of unbelieving Jews serves to magnify the righteousness of God. In that case, would it not be unjust of God to punish the Jew? ‘What shall we say?’ asked Paul. He answered his own question with a second question, this time anticipating a negative response (‘God would not be unjust in bringing his wrath on us would He?’). The answer (coming in verse 6) would be strong, Certainly not! Just before that, however, Paul inserted ‘a parenthetic apology for the blasphemous thought of God as unjust.’ The notion that unrighteous conduct could ever serve to enhance the righteous character of God is strictly a ‘human argument.’ For Jews to reason in this way would have been for them to deny a basic truth they held to be inviolable, namely, that ‘God [will] judge the world’ (cf. Gen. 18:25; Ps. 96:13; Isa. 66:16; Joel 3:12). If punishment on God’s part implied injustice, then God, who by definition is just, could not serve as the eschatological judge of all humans. To put it in the current idiom, we

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 1 cannot have it both ways.” (The New American Commentary, volume 27, Romans, pages 94-95; Broadman and Holman Publishers). Therefore, we will translate the conjunction de , “ but .” Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “If ” is the conditional particle ei ( ei)) (i), which introduces the protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The first class condition is conveyed “explicitly” with the conditional particle ei , “ if ” and the indicative mood of the verb sunistemi , “ demonstrates ” in order to introduce the protasis. The apodasis is introduced implicitly without a structural marker and appears in the rhetorical question ti eroumen me adikos ho theos ho epipheron ten orgen , “what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He ?” In Romans 3:5, the basic relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is “evidence-inference.” The evidence is that Jewish unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God and Paul is inferring from this evidence. The inference is that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation against unrighteous Jews. The rhetorical question rejects this idea as well as the negative particle me in the emphatic position of the apodasis of Romans 3:5 and the statement me genoito , “ may it never be !” in Romans 3:6. Paul is making an induction about the implications that this piece of evidence suggests in order to refute his opponents, the Judaizers who claimed He taught that God had permanently rejected the nation of Israel for their rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah and thus implying that God was unfaithful to His promises. As we have noted earlier in our studies of the book of Romans, the idea behind the first class condition is not “since” but rather, “if-and let us assume for the sake of argument, then...” The use of the first class condition is a debater’s technique and is used as a tool of persuasion. Paul is anticipating the objection of his Jewish opponents in order that he might emphatically refute it. Their argument would be that if Jewish unrighteousness magnifies the righteousness of God, is God then, justified in exercising His righteous indignation towards them. We will translate the conditional particle ei , “ if-and let us assume for the sake of argument, then …” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument…then .” “Our ” is the genitive 1 st person plural form of the personal pronoun hemeis (h(mei~$ ), which is hemon ( h(mw~n ), which is used by Paul in order to identify himself with his opponents, the Judaizers, in order to refute his objection.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 2

Of course, Paul is not a Jewish unbeliever but rather he employs debater’s technique by assuming the position of the self-righteous Jewish unbeliever in order to destroy that position. In other words, he sets up a straw man in order that he might knock him over. The personal pronoun hemeis functions as a “possessive” genitive indicating that this unrighteousness “belongs to” the unsaved Jew. “Unrighteousness ” is the articular nominative feminine singular form of the noun adikia ( a)dikiva ) (ad-ee-kee-ah), which is the antithesis in meaning to the noun dikaiosune ( dikaiosuvnh ), “righteousness,” which is a general term for “virtue” and “integrity” of character, thus, adikia is the state of possessing no virtue or integrity. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines “integrity”: (1) Soundness of and adherence to moral principle and character; uprightness; honesty (2) The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished (3) A sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines “virtue”: (1) Moral excellence; goodness; righteousness (2) Conformity of one’s life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness, rectitude. Therefore, in Romans 3:5, the noun adikia refers to the unsaved Jew as having “no” integrity in the sense that his character is “not” sound, and does “not” adhere to the will of God, and is “not” upright, honest, perfectly whole, is “diminished,” and “unsound,” “impaired” and in a “bad” condition. In context, the noun adikia describes the unsaved Jew as having “no” virtue in the sense that he has “no” moral excellence, “no” goodness, and his conduct does “not” conform to the will of God. In Romans chapter two, Paul described the unrighteousness of the Jew in detail. First of all, they committed the same sins that the unsaved Gentiles committed according to Romans 1:28-2:1. Romans 1:28-2:1, “Furthermore, just as, they never approved of God for the purpose of retaining (Him) in the realm of knowledge, God, as an eternal spiritual truth, gave them over to a disapproved intellect in order to habitually do improper things with the result that they have been consumed with each and every kind of unrighteousness, evil, greed, malice, extensively engaged in envy, murder, strife, deception, evil dispositions, scandals, slanders, God-haters, violent insolents antagonists, arrogant, loud arrogant boasters, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, stupid, contract breakers, unaffectionate with loved ones, unmerciful who indeed by virtue of their evil character, although, they as an eternal spiritual truth know experientially the righteous regulation originating with God, namely, that those who as a lifestyle practice such things are as an eternal spiritual truth worthy, namely,

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 3 of death, they not only as a lifestyle do the same things but also, they as an eternal spiritual truth applaud those who as a lifestyle practice them. For this very reason, you are, as an eternal spiritual truth, without excuse O man, each and everyone of you without exception who as a lifestyle judge as guilty for by means of that which you as a lifestyle judge as guilty the other person, you, as an eternal spiritual truth condemn yourself for you, who as a lifestyle judge as guilty, make it a habit to practice the same things.” Romans 2:4-5 teaches that they held in contempt God’s infinite kindness, tolerance and patience towards them, which was meant to lead them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and were thus obstinate and unrepentant. Romans 2:2-5, “Now, we know for certain that God’s judgment is, as an eternal spiritual truth according to truth, against those who as a lifestyle practice such things. But, do you continue to presume this that you will escape God’s judgment, O man, when you, who as a lifestyle, judge as guilty those, who as a lifestyle, practice such things and you do, as a lifestyle, the very same things? Or do you continue to hold in contempt His infinite kindness and tolerance and patience, habitually ignoring the fact that the kindness originating from God’s character and nature is, as an eternal spiritual truth, leading you to repentance? But according to your obstinacy and unrepentant heart, you are, as an eternal spiritual truth, storing up for yourselves righteous indignation on a day characterized by righteous indignation, yes, when the righteous judgment executed by God is revealed.” The unsaved Jews failed to keep perfectly the Mosaic Law and were merely hearers of the Law according to Romans 2:12-13. Romans 2:12-13, “For as many as have sinned without the Law have caused themselves to be destroyed without the Law and as many as have sinned under the jurisdiction of the Law will be condemned by means of the Law. For you see, the hearers of the Law are, as an eternal spiritual truth, absolutely never righteous before God but rather the doers of the Law will, as an eternal spiritual truth, be justified.” They were pretentious as a result of the privileges that God gave them according to Romans 2:17-20. Romans 2:17-20, “Now, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument-you do identify yourself by the name ‘Jew’ and you do rely upon the Law and do boast in a relationship with God. And know His will through instruction and can discern the essentials because you have received oral instruction in the past in a detailed, systematic and repetitious manner by means of the Law and continue to do so. Moreover, you are confident in yourself, namely that you are as a guide for the blind, a light to those in darkness. An instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of the immature because in the Law you are in possession

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 4 of the unique embodiment of that, which is full of knowledge well as that, which is full of truth.” The nation of Israel failed to live up to her privilege of being the elect nation of God and being the custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures, which contained the records of the covenants made with their forefathers after the flesh, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In relation to this, she failed in her responsibility of being the custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures since 2 Chronicles 34:1-30 records that during the reign prior to King Josiah Israel, the Jews misplaced and lost the written record of God’s law. 2 Chronicles 34:1-30, “Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. He did right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the ways of his father David and did not turn aside to the right or to the left. For in the eighth year of his reign while he was still a youth, he began to seek the God of his father David; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of the high places, the Asherim, the carved images and the molten images. They tore down the altars of the Baals in his presence, and the incense altars that were high above them he chopped down; also the Asherim, the carved images and the molten images he broke in pieces and ground to powder and scattered it on the graves of those who had sacrificed to them. Then he burned the bones of the priests on their altars and purged Judah and Jerusalem. In the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, even as far as Naphtali, in their surrounding ruins, he also tore down the altars and beat the Asherim and the carved images into powder, and chopped down all the incense altars throughout the land of Israel. Then he returned to Jerusalem. Now in the eighteenth year of his reign, when he had purged the land and the house, he sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, and Maaseiah an official of the city, and Joah the son of Joahaz the recorder, to repair the house of the LORD his God. They came to Hilkiah the high priest and delivered the money that was brought into the house of God, which the Levites, the doorkeepers, had collected from Manasseh and Ephraim, and from all the remnant of Israel, and from all Judah and Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then they gave it into the hands of the workmen who had the oversight of the house of the LORD, and the workmen who were working in the house of the LORD used it to restore and repair the house. They in turn gave it to the carpenters and to the builders to buy quarried stone and timber for couplings and to make beams for the houses which the kings of Judah had let go to ruin. The men did the work faithfully with foremen over them to supervise: Jahath and Obadiah, the Levites of the sons of Merari, Zechariah and Meshullam of the sons of the Kohathites, and the Levites, all who were skillful with musical instruments. They were also over

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 5 the burden bearers, and supervised all the workmen from job to job; and some of the Levites were scribes and officials and gatekeepers. When they were bringing out the money which had been brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of the LORD given by Moses. Hilkiah responded and said to Shaphan the scribe, ‘I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.’ And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan. Then Shaphan brought the book to the king and reported further word to the king, saying, ‘Everything that was entrusted to your servants they are doing. They have also emptied out the money which was found in the house of the LORD, and have delivered it into the hands of the supervisors and the workmen.’ Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, ‘Hilkiah the priest gave me a book.’ And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king. When the king heard the words of the law, he tore his clothes. Then the king commanded Hilkiah, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Abdon the son of Micah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying, ‘Go, inquire of the LORD for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book which has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD which is poured out on us because our fathers have not observed the word of the LORD, to do according to all that is written in this book.’ So Hilkiah and those whom the king had told went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tokhath, the son of Hasrah, the keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter); and they spoke to her regarding this. She said to them, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Tell the man who sent you to Me, thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I am bringing evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the curses written in the book which they have read in the presence of the king of Judah. Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore My wrath will be poured out on this place and it shall not be quenched. But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the LORD, thus you will say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel regarding the words which you have heard, Because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before God when you heard His words against this place and against its inhabitants, and because you humbled yourself before Me, tore your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you,’ declares the LORD. Behold, I will gather you to your fathers and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, so your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place and on its inhabitants.’ And they brought back word to the king. Then the king sent and gathered all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. The king went up to the house of the LORD and all the men of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 6

Levites and all the people, from the greatest to the least; and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD.” The nation of Israel was also hypocritical in that they did not practice what they taught the unsaved Gentiles and yet made a pretense of being spiritual, which resulted in the unsaved Gentiles blaspheming the character of God according to Romans 2:21-24. Romans 2:21-24, “Then, you who do teach another person, do you ever teach yourself? You, who do publicly proclaim (the Law) as a herald in a dignified and authoritative manner: don’t steal, do you steal? You, who do command: Don’t commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who do abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who do boast about possessing the Law, by means of your transgression of the Law, do you cause the (Son of) God to be dishonored? Consequently, ‘the reputation of the character of God’s person as a fact does get slandered among the Gentiles because of all of you’ just as it stands written, for all of eternity.” This passage teaches that the unsaved Jews were involved in stealing, adultery, and robbing pagan temples for personal profit. In fact, in her history, Israel was involved in idolatry according to Exodus 32 in their worship of the golden calf. The unsaved Jews were involved in racial bigotry in that they would not associate with the Gentiles peoples and thus failed to lead them to the Lord. The unrighteousness of Israel was also manifested in their self-righteousness in that they sought to establish their own righteousness rather than receive God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ according to Romans 10:1-3. Romans 10:1-4, “Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Their seeking to establish their own righteousness independently of God’s righteousness in the Person of Jesus Christ manifested the fact that they were involved in evil, which is independence from God (Isaiah 14:12-14). The unrighteousness of the nation of Israel was manifested by their arrogance and presumptuousness in thinking that being biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would gain them automatic entrance into the kingdom of God and protect them from the wrath of God. Matthew 3:5-9, “Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. But when he saw many of the

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 7

Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’ Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ;We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.” Matthew 8:11-12, “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” John 8:34-45, “Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.’ The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father. They answered and said to Him, ‘Abraham is our father.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.’ But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father. They said to Him, ‘We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.’ Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” The unrighteousness of the nation of Israel was also manifested in that they presumptuously thought that being circumcised and possessing the Law could gain them automatic entrance into the kingdom of God and protect them from eternal condemnation. Romans 2:25-29, “Indeed, on the one hand circumcision is, as an eternal spiritual truth, beneficial if you should always practice the Law. On the other hand, if you should be at any time a transgressor of the Law, (then) your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if the uncircumcision always observes the righteous regulations originating from the Law, then, will not (God) consider and treat accordingly His uncircumcision as circumcision? In fact, the physically uncircumcised by fulfilling perfectly the Law will condemn you who are by means of Scripture and circumcision a transgressor

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 8 of the Law. Therefore, as an eternal spiritual truth, he is absolutely never a Jew who is one by means of the external, nor, as an eternal spiritual truth, is circumcision, that which is by means of the external in the human body. But rather, as an eternal spiritual truth, he is a Jew who is one by means of the internal and circumcision originates in the heart by means of the omnipotence of the Spirit, never by means of the letter whose praise is as an eternal spiritual truth never from men but from God.” The nation of Israel’s unrighteousness was most clearly manifested when they crucified their Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Acts 2:36, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ -- this Jesus whom you crucified.” The definite article preceding the noun adikia is used with the personal pronoun hemeis to denote possession. We will translate adikia , “ unrighteousness .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness…then .” Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “Demonstrates ” is the 3 rd person singular present active indicative form of the verb sunistemi ( sunivsthmi ) (soon-is-tay-mee), which is a compound word composed of the preposition sun , “together with” and the verb histemi , “to set, place, stand,” thus the word literally means, “to set together, unite.” When used with people it can mean “introduce” or “recommend.” When used with an object it usually means either to “stand by” or “to exist.” It can be transitive or intransitive. Aristotle employed sunistemi in the sense of being composed or consisting of something (Liddell and Scott, page 4921). Philo used the verb in the sense of “to hold together, or exist” in an intransitive sense. Sunistemi appears in the Septuagint to describe the “pools of water” in Exodus 7:19. The word appears in Numbers 16:3 in both a literal and figurative sense for those who stood together with Korah against Moses and Aaron and also stood in rebellion against them. This sense appears in 1 Samuel 17:26 where David talked to the armies of Israel who stood by him in the debate over Goliath. The verb sunistemi appears 16 times in the Greek New Testament. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised lists the following meanings for the word in the Greek New Testament: (1) To place together, to recommend to favorable attention (Rom. 16:1; 2 Cor. 3:1; 10:18) (2) To place in a striking point of view, to evince (Rom. 3:5; 5:8; Gal. 2:18) (3) Intransitively, to stand beside

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 9

(Luke 9:32) (4) To have been permanently framed (Col. 1:17) (5) To possess consistence (2 Pet. 3:5) (page 391). The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: (1) To place together, to set in the same place, to bring or band together; intransitively, to stand with (2) To set one with another, i.e. by way of presenting or introducing him, i.e. to commend. (3) To put together by way of composition or combination, to teach by combining and comparing, hence, to show, prove, establish, exhibit (4) To put together, to be composed of, consist; to cohere, hold together (page 605). Bauer lists the following meanings: (1) Transitive (a) Bring together, unite, collect (b) Present, introduce or recommend someone to someone else (c) Demonstrate, show, bring out something (2) Middle, put together, constitute, establish, prepare something (3) Intransitive (a) Stand with or by (b) Be composed or compounded, consist (c) Continue, endure, exist, hold together (pages 790-791). Louw and Nida list the following: (1) To indicate approval of a person or event, with the implication that others adopt the same attitude – ‘to recommend’ (page 428) (2) To cause something to be known by action – ‘to make known by action, to demonstrate, to show’ (page 341) (3) To bring together or hold together something in its proper or appropriate place or relationship – ‘to hold together’ (page 614). Kenneth Wuest commenting on the usage of the verb sunistemi in Romans 3:5, writes, “Used of setting one person with another by way of introducing or presenting, hence, ‘to commend.’ It is used in the sense of putting together with a view to showing, proving, or establishing. Human sin is a foil by which God’s righteousness is seen all the more clearly. It establishes the fact of God’s righteousness, proves it by its very contrast with that sin.” (Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, volume 1, Romans, page 58). In Romans 3:5, the verb sunistemi is used in a transitive sense and means, “to cause something to be made conspicuous by some action.” Therefore, the word sunistemi expresses the idea that the unrighteousness of the unsaved Jew caused the righteousness of God to be made more “conspicuous.” “Conspicuous” means, “easily seen, visible, readily observable, attracting special attention as by outstanding qualities.” The unrighteousness of the unsaved Jews caused the righteousness of God to be easily seen, visible, readily observable, attracting special attention by its outstanding quality. The present tense is a “gnomic” present, which describes something as true “any” time and “does” take place. Therefore, it indicates that the unrighteousness of the unsaved Jews “does” cause the righteousness of God to be made conspicuous. The active voice indicates that the subject produces the action of the verb. Therefore, the unrighteousness of the unsaved Jews as the subject produces the action of causing the righteousness of God to be made conspicuous or obvious.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 10

The indicative mood is employed with the conditional particle ei in order to introduce the protasis of a first class condition, which indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. We will translate the verb sunistemi , “ does cause…to be made conspicuous .” Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “The righteousness ” is the accusative feminine singular form of the noun dikaiosune ( dikaiosuvnh ), which was used in classical Greek and the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) as a general term for “virtue” and “integrity” of character. In Romans 3:5, the noun dikaiosune means, “ righteousness ” and is used to describe God as indicated by the articular genitive form of the noun theos , which modifies it. Dikaiosune describes the character of God as having perfect integrity in the sense that His character is perfectly sound, perfectly adhering to His perfect standards, and is upright, honest, perfectly whole, undiminished, sound, unimpaired and in perfect condition. The righteousness of God refers to the character of God as having perfect virtue in the sense that His character is perfect moral excellence, goodness, and His conduct is conformed perfectly to His perfect standards. The noun dikaiosune functions as an “accusative direct object” meaning it is receiving the action of the verb sunistemi . “Of God ” is the genitive masculine singular form of the noun theos (qeov$ ), which is a genitive of possession indicating that this righteousness “belongs to” God. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness does cause God’s righteousness to be made conspicuous…then .” Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” Now, we come to the apodasis of the first class condition, which is introduced “implicitly” meaning without a structural marker. Therefore, we will insert the word “ then ” into our translation. The negative particle me ( mhv) (may) appears at the beginning of the apodasis introducing the rhetorical question indicating that a negative answer is anticipated. We will translate the word “No!” and place it at the end of our translation since translating the word at the beginning of the question does not make good English

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 11 though having the negative particle at the beginning of the question does make good Greek. “What ” is the accusative neuter singular form of the interrogative pronoun tis (tiv$ ) (tis), which asks a debater’s rhetorical question and functions as an accusative direct object meaning it is receiving the action of the verb ereo . “Shall we say ” is the 1st person plural future active indicative form of the verb ereo ( e)revw ) (er-eh-o), which means, “to say.” This verb appears 50 times in the Greek New Testament. Various forms of this verb indicate not just the speaking of words but rather they indicate the forcefulness of the speaker is emerging in a command, affirmation, or objection. The speaker is not only verbalizing a thought but emphasizing it as well. The verb ereo denotes a strong affirmation by the writer and expresses a solemn declaration. It is used as the future tense for lego and eipon and is also listed sometimes as the future tense of the almost obsolete eiro . The verb ereo is used with the interrogative pronoun tis , “ what ” to express Paul’s hesitation and revulsion in presenting a rhetorical question, which infers the unthinkable and the preposterous, namely, that God is unrighteous. This is obviously blasphemous to imply that God is unrighteous in any way. This rhetorical question is translated by the New American Standard as “ what shall we say ?” However it is a Greek idiom in debater’s technique and it should be translated, “what is the inference or conclusion that we are forced to?” The future tense of the verb is a “deliberative future” meaning that it asks a question that implies some doubt about the response. However, Paul is asking a rhetorical question in place of a direct assertion that demands a negative response. In the active voice, Paul assumes the argument or objection of his opponents as part of a debater’s technique in order to refute their objection. This is an ‘interrogative” indicative where an “assertion is expected” from Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience. It indicates that Paul is presenting a rhetorical question that demands a negative response. We will translate the expression ti eroumen , “ what is the conclusion that we are forced to ?” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness does cause God’s righteousness to be made conspicuous. What then is the conclusion that we are forced to? ” Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “The God ” is the articular nominative masculine singular form of the noun theos ( qeov$ ), which refers to the second member of the Trinity, the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ who manifested and represented the Trinity before men and

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 12 was the member of the Trinity who made the promises to the patriarchs and the nation of Israel. The definite article preceding the noun theos indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ is in view here since the article indicates that God is “well-known” to Paul’s unsaved Jewish readership since he is referring to the God who manifested himself to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Son of God is that member of the Trinity who manifested God to men. The articular construction of the noun theos indicates that it functions as a “nominative subject” and distinguishes from the predicate nominative adikia , “unrighteous .” The noun theos functions as a nominative subject meaning it is performing the action of the verb epiphero . We will translate the articular form of the theos , “ God ( the Son ).” “Who inflicts ” is the articular nominative masculine present active participle form of the verb epiphero ( e)pifevrw ) (ep-ee-fer-o), which is a compound word composed of the preposition epi , “upon” and the verb phero , “to bring,” thus the word literally means, “to bear upon.” In classical Greek, the verb epiphero means, “to bring upon or grant something to someone.” The word has another meaning of “pronouncing a judgment or inflicting punishment.” It appears in the papyri conveying the idea of producing or presenting something to someone. The word appears in the Septuagint frequently in the context of laying hands on someone in the sense of capturing them (1 Samuel [LXX 1 Kings] 24:7; 26;11; Esther 8:7). In some cases it simply means, “moving or carrying” (Genesis 1:2; 7:8). The verb epiphero appears only five times in the Greek New Testament (Acts 19:12; 25:18; Romans 3:5; Philippians 1:16; Jude 9). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature list the following meanings for the verb: (1) Bring, give, grant (2) Bring over or upon (a) Figuratively, bring something upon someone or something (3) Bring, pronounce (4) Inflict (page 304). Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains defines the verb epiphero , “to cause someone to experience something, with the implication of imposed authority – ‘to bring upon, to impose upon’ (volume 2, page 810). The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: (1) To bring upon, bring forward (2) To lay upon, to inflict (3) To bring upon i.e. in addition, to add, increase (4) To put upon, cast upon, impose (page 246). The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised: (1) To bring upon or against (2) To inflict (3) To bring to, apply to (4) To bring in addition, add, superadd (page 163).

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 13

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament define the verb, “produce; bring forward; impose” (volume 2, page 45). In Romans 3:5, the verb epiphero is used with the accusative form of the noun orge , “righteous indignation, wrath” and means, “to cause someone to experience something with the implication of imposing or making use of one’s authority, thus to exercise.” In our context, the verb epiphero speaks of God causing the unbeliever to experience His righteous indignation by making use of His authority or power. The word is a “nominative in simple apposition” meaning it stands next to the nominative form of the noun theos , “ God ” and clarifies or identifies this noun for us, which is that God causes the unrighteous to experience His righteous indignation. The verb is in a participle form and as such functions as a “temporal” participle and answers the question as to “when” God is unrighteous. The present tense indicates that the action of the participle is “contemporaneous” with the action of the main verb eimi , which is omitted due to the figure of ellipsis. Thus it should be translated “while” exercising and not “when.” The present tense is “futuristic” used to describe a future event that is certain to take place. It speaks of the inevitability and certainty of the Jewish unbeliever experiencing the righteous indignation of God when he is deposited into the lake of fire forever at the Great White Throne Judgment. The active voice indicates that God as the subject produces the action of causing the unsaved, unrighteous Jew to experience His righteous indignation at the Great White Throne Judgment. We will translate the articular participle form of the verb epiphero , “ while, inevitably exercising .” “Wrath ” is the articular accusative feminine singular form of the noun orge (o)rghv) (or-gay), which refers to God’s attitude of “righteous indignation” in response to any thought, word, or action of mankind and angels, that is opposed to His holiness and manifests itself in actions that judge and punish the guilty. The noun orge functions as an “accusative direct object” meaning it is receiving the action of the participle form of the verb epiphero . In Romans 3:5, the definite article preceding the noun orge functions as a “possessive” pronoun since the context implies possession. Therefore, we will translate the articular form of the noun orge , “ His righteous indignation .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness does cause God’s righteousness to be made conspicuous. What then is the conclusion that we are forced to? God while inevitably exercising His righteous indignation…”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 14

Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” The apostle Paul deliberately omits the 3 rd person singular present active indicative form of the verb eimi ( ei)miv) (i-mee) since he is employing the figure of ellipsis. The verb is omitted by Paul purposely so as to draw attention to the question. The New American Standard insert the copula “ is ” in order to make for a smoother translation. The verb eimi denotes that Paul’s opponents are accusing him of implying that God’s character and nature possesses a certain inherent characteristic that is identified by the adjective adikia , “ unrighteous .” The word functions as a copula uniting the subject, which is the noun theos , “God ” and the predicate nominative, which is the adjective adikos , “ unrighteous. ” The present tense is “stative” and the active voice is “stative” indicating that Paul’s opponents were accused him of insinuating that God “exists in the state of being” unrighteous for judging Jewish unrighteousness since His righteousness is made more conspicuous as a result of Jewish unrighteousness. The indicative mood is “interrogative” since it is used with the interrogative particle tis , “ what ” to form a rhetorical question that anticipates and demands a negative response. Again, as we have noted before, Paul is assuming the position of his Jewish opponents, presenting their objection to his statements in Romans 3:4 so that he might emphatically refute their inference from these statements in Romans 3:4. We will translate eimi , “ is .” “Not unrighteous ” is composed of the negative particle me ( mhv) (may), “ not ” and the nominative masculine singular form of the adjective adikos ( a&diko$ ) (ad- ee-kos), “ unrighteous .” The cognate noun of the adjective adikos is adikia , which we have seen already three times in the book of Romans (Romans 1:18, 29; 2:8). Romans 1:18, “For God’s righteous indignation is as an eternal spiritual truth revealed from the third heaven against each and every kind of ungodliness and unrighteousness produced by mankind who as an eternal spiritual truth are characterized by suppressing the truth by means of unrighteousness .” Romans 1:28-29, “Furthermore, just as, they never approved of God for the purpose of retaining (Him) in the realm of knowledge, God, as an eternal spiritual truth, gave them over to a disapproved intellect in order to habitually do improper things with the result that they have been consumed with each and every kind of unrighteousness .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 15

Romans 2:8: “While on the other hand, for the disadvantage of those who are motivated by inordinate selfish ambition and continue not to be persuaded so as to believe and disobey the truth but rather continue to obey unrighteousness , there shall be righteous indignation, yes, the manifestation of that righteous indignation.” As we have noted in our previous studies of this word, the noun adikia is the antithesis in meaning to the noun dikaiosune ( dikaiosuvnh ), which was used in classical Greek and the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) as a general term for “virtue” and “integrity” of character, thus, adikia is the state of possessing no virtue or integrity. We have noted Webster’s definition of the word “integrity” and “virtue” in our study of the noun dikaiosune in this verse. Therefore, paraphrasing Webster’s definition of these words, we saw that the noun adikia , “ unrighteousness ” refers to someone as having “no” integrity in the sense that their character is “not” sound, and does “not” adhere to the will of God, and is “not” upright, honest, perfectly whole, they are “diminished,” and “unsound,” “impaired” and in a “bad” condition. The noun adikia describes someone as having “no” virtue in the sense that they have “no” moral excellence, “no” goodness, and their conduct is does “not” conform to the will of God. The noun dikaiosune , “ righteousness ” refers to fulfilling one’s obligations to love both God and men, doing right to both God and men. Therefore, the noun adikia refers to “not” fulfilling one’s obligations to love both God and men or in other words, doing right by both of them. So we can see that the adjective adikia describes the state or condition of being unrighteous and is applied to God here in Romans 3:5. Thus, Paul’s Jewish opponents were accusing him of teaching that God was unrighteous based upon his statements in Romans 3:4 that Jewish unrighteous made more conspicuous the righteousness of God. They were accusing Paul of teaching that God had no integrity and that His character was not sound, He was not upright, honest, perfectly whole, and that He was diminished and unsound, impaired and in a bad condition. They accused him of insinuating that God had no virtue in the sense that He did not have any moral excellence, or goodness. Paul was accused of insinuating by his statements in Romans 3:4 that God did not fulfill His obligations to love His creatures and His covenant people, thus accusing God of unfaithfulness. The negative particle me refutes such an idea and indicates that a negative response to the rhetorical question is anticipated. The adjective adikos functions as a predicate nominative meaning that is it making an assertion about God in this rhetorical question that He is unrighteous. We will translate the adjective adikos , “ unrighteous .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 16

Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness does cause God’s righteousness to be made conspicuous. What then is the conclusion that we are forced to? Is God unrighteous, while inevitably exercising His righteous indignation? No! ” Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” “I am speaking ” is the 1 st person singular present active indicative form of the verb lego ( levgw ), which means, “to speak” with emphasis upon his previous rhetorical question. The word is used with the prepositional phrase kata anthropon , “ in human terms ,” which is a reference to human viewpoint, thus the expression refers to Paul “expressing human viewpoint.” “In human terms ” is composed of the preposition kata ( katav), “ in ” and the accusative masculine singular form of the noun anthropos ( a*nqrwpo$ ) (anth-ro- pos), “human terms .” The term anthropos refers to “human viewpoint” in contrast to divine viewpoint presented in the Word of God by the Holy Spirit. The preposition kata with the accusative noun anthropos , “ human terms ” specifies that the “standard” by which Paul’s presents the previous rhetorical question and should be translated “according to .” The present tense of the verb lego is an “instantaneous” or “aoristic” present used to indicate that an action is completed at the moment of speaking. The active voice refers to Paul producing the action of the verb relating to his audience that he is presenting human viewpoint in the previous rhetorical question. The indicative mood is “declarative” presenting this assertion as an unqualified statement of fact. We will translate the verb lego and the prepositional phrase kata anthropon , “ I am speaking according to human viewpoint .” This statement is a parenthetic apology for the blasphemous concept of God being unrighteous. But it was necessary to speak of in order to refute the objections of his Jewish opponents in order that they might in the end see their need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. With this statement at the end of Romans 3:5, Paul is saying that he does not believe such a blasphemous thought and that he is simply paraphrasing the charges made against him by his Jewish opponents, the Judaizers. The idea that God could ever be unrighteous is strictly “human viewpoint.” For the Jews to come to this conclusion they would have to deny a basic doctrine taught in their Scriptures that God will judge the world, which Paul will

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 17 point out to them in Romans 3:6 (Genesis 18:25; Psalm 96:13; Isaiah 66:16; Joel 3:12). Completed corrected translation of Romans 3:5: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness does cause God’s righteousness to be made conspicuous. What then is the conclusion that we are forced to? Is God unrighteous, while inevitably exercising His righteous indignation? (I am speaking according to human viewpoint.) No!” Romans 3:5 teaches that God is justified and His integrity is not compromised by exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness and to express such an idea is based upon flawed human viewpoint. In fact, the exercise of God’s righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness serves to confirm the integrity and holiness of God in that it demonstrates God’s total and absolute rejection of anything that is contrary to His perfect character and integrity. God’s holiness meaning the absolute perfection of His character guarantees that God will always be justified in exercising His righteous indignation upon the unrighteousness of human beings whether Jew or Gentile since His holiness can have nothing to do with human sin.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 18

Romans: Romans 3:6-God is Not Unrighteous Since How Will He Judge the World

As we noted in Romans 3:5, Paul pose another question to the unsaved Jew that rejects the idea that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation against Jewish unbelievers since their unrighteousness makes conspicuous God’s righteousness. Romans 3:5, “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)” As we saw in our studies of Romans 3:5, the negative particle me in the emphatic position of the apodasis in Romans 3:5 rejects such a blasphemous idea that God could ever be unrighteous. Then, here in Romans 3:6, Paul continues the rejection of such a thought and in emphatic terms and responds with another question, asking the rhetorical question as to how could God judge the world then? Romans 3:6, “May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?” “May it never be!” is composed of 3rd person singular aorist (deponent) middle optative form of the verb ginomai ( givnomai ), “ may it be ” and the negative particle me ( mhv) (may), “never .” The verb ginomai means, “to happen, with the implication that what happens is different from a previous state,” thus “to come to be.” Therefore, the word conveys the idea of God entering into the state of being unrighteous and the negative particle me negates any idea of this taking place as well denying any thought of God becoming unrighteous. This expression me genoito , “ may it never be ” is the strongest negative Greek expression emphatically denying any possibility or thought of God being unrighteous while exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness. The aorist tense is “ingressive” denoting the idea of God entering into the state of being unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness and which idea is negated by the negative particle me . The deponent middle voice means that the verb has a middle voice form but an active meaning. The active meaning is “stative” expressing the concept of God “existing in the state of being” unrighteous, and which idea is negated by the negative particle me . The mood of the verb ginomai is a “voluntative optative,” which expresses Paul’s abhorrence of an inference which he fears might be falsely drawn from his argument. It indicates his repulsion at the thought that someone might infer an

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 19 erroneous conclusion from the previous argument in Romans 3:3-4. The optative appeals to the volition of his audience expressing the idea that they should never conclude such a thing that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness. It says “God forbid that you should think this!” The expression me genoito literally means, “may it never come to pass” but in order to convey accurately the idiom of the Greek into the English language, the best expression would be “ Absolutely not ! Romans 3:6, “May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?” “For ” is the conjunction epei ( e)peiv) (ep-i), which is employed as a “causal” conjunction introducing a statement that presents the “reason why” God can never be considered unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unbelievers. “How ” is the interrogative particle pos ( pw~$ ) (poce), which is used in a rhetorical question that rejects outright the inference that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness. “Will judge ” is the 3 rd person singular future active indicative form of the verb krino ( krivnw ) (kree-no), which means, “to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong,” and by implication, “to pass judgment upon someone or something as evil or wrong after weighing the evidence and without reservation,” hence, “to condemn.” The future tense of the verb is a “deliberative future” meaning that it asks a question that implies some doubt about the response. Paul is asking a rhetorical question in place of a direct assertion that demands a negative response from his unsaved Jewish audience, which is one of the nuances of a debater’s technique. He is saying, “If God is unrighteous, then how could He judge the world?” This rhetorical question is designed encourage his Jewish audience to respond and come to the conclusion that refutes their inference from Romans 3:3-4 that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness. The active voice indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ will conduct the Great White Throne Judgment of all unbelievers at the conclusion of human history. This is an ‘interrogative” indicative where an “assertion is expected” from Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience. It indicates that Paul is presenting a rhetorical question that demands a negative response from his unsaved Jewish audience that refutes their inference that God is unrighteous if He exercises His righteous indignation upon Jewish unbelievers. We will translate the verb krino , “ will condemn .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 20

Romans 3:6, “May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?” “The God ” is the articular nominative masculine singular form of the noun theos (qeov$ ), which refers to the second member of the Trinity, the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ who manifested and represented the Trinity before men (John 1:18). The word functions as a “nominative subject” meaning it is performing the action of the verb krino . The definite article preceding the noun theos indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ is in view here since the article indicates that God is “well-known” to Paul’s unsaved Jewish readership since he is referring to the God who manifested himself to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God the Father rewarded the resurrected impeccable human nature of Jesus Christ for His voluntary substitutionary spiritual death on the cross by bestowing upon Him the sovereign rulership over all creation and every creature and the power and authority to conduct the Great White Throne Judgment of all unbelievers. Philippians 2:5-6, “Everyone continue thinking this (according to humility) within yourselves, which was also in (the mind of) Christ Jesus, Who although existing from eternity past in the essence of God, He never regarded existing equally in essence with God an exploitable asset.” Philippians 2:7, “On the contrary, He denied Himself of the independent function of His divine attributes by having assumed the essence of a slave when He was born in the likeness of men.” Philippians 2:8, “In fact, although He was discovered in outward appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by having entered into obedience to the point of spiritual death even death on a Cross.” Philippians 2:9, “For this very reason in fact God the Father has promoted Him to the highest-ranking position and has awarded to Him the rank, which is superior to every rank.” Philippians 2:10, “In order that in the sphere of this rank possessed by Jesus every person must bow, celestials and terrestrials and sub-terrestrials.” Philippians 2:11, “Also, every person must publicly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord for the glory of God the Father.” The Lord Jesus Christ Himself declared to the Jews that the Father had given Him authority to judge the living and the dead. John 5:22-23, “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 21

John 5:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” John 5:25, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” John 5:26-27, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” John 5:28-29, “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” The Lord Jesus Christ will preside over and conduct the following judgments: (1) “Bema Seat Evaluation”: The name “Bema” is taken from the Greek noun bema and this judgment takes place immediately after the Rapture of the Church and is actually an “evaluation” of the church age believer’s life after salvation to determine if they merit rewards or not (Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 John 2:24). (2) The judgment of “Israel” will take place immediately after the Second Advent and prior to the millennial reign and involves the removal unregenerate Israel from the earth leaving only regenerate Israel to enter into the Millennial reign of Christ (Ezekiel 20:37-38; Zechariah 13:8-9; Malachi 3:2-3, 5; Matthew 25:1-30). (3) The judgment of the “Gentiles” and also takes place immediately after the Second Advent of Christ and prior to His millennial reign and involves the removal unregenerate, anti-Semitic Gentiles from the earth (Matthew 25:31-46). (4) The judgment of Satan and his fallen angels and will take place at the end of the appeal trial of Satan, which runs co-terminus with human history and is execution of Satan and the fallen angels sentence for their pre-historic rebellion against God (Matthew 25:41; 1 Corinthians 6:3; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Revelation 20:10). (5) The “Great White Throne” judgment, which will take place at the end of human history and is the judgment of all unregenerate humanity in human history for the rejection of Christ as Savior (Revelation 20:11- 15). Psalm 9:8, “And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.” Psalm 50:6, “And the heavens declare His righteousness, for God Himself is judge. Selah.” Psalm 96:13, “Before the LORD, for He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in His faithfulness.”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 22

Psalm 98:9, “Before the LORD, for He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness and the peoples with equity.” Psalm 110:4-7, “The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ The Lord is at Your right hand. He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside. Therefore He will lift up His head.” Psalm 119:137, “Righteous are You, O LORD, and upright are Your judgments.” Ecclesiastes 3:17, “I said to myself, ‘God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man," for a time for every matter and for every deed is there.’” Ecclesiastes 8:11-12, “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil. Although a sinner does evil a hundred times and may lengthen his life, still I know that it will be well for those who fear God, who fear Him openly.” Ecclesiastes 11:9, “Rejoice, young man, during your childhood, and let your heart be pleasant during the days of young manhood. And follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes. Yet know that God will bring you to judgment for all these things.” Isaiah 5:16, “But the LORD of hosts will be exalted in judgment, and the holy God will show Himself holy in righteousness.” Ezekiel 18:30-32, “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. ‘Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,’ declares the Lord GOD. ‘Therefore, repent and live.’” Acts 17:22-34, “So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ‘Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 23 face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, ‘We shall hear you again concerning this.’ So Paul went out of their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.” We will translate the articular form of the noun theos , “ God ( the Son ).” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:6: “ Absolutely not! For how will God condemn .” Romans 3:6, “May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?” “The world ” is the articular accusative masculine singular form of the noun kosmos ( kovsmo$ ) (kos-mos), which refers to the unsaved inhabitants of the earth who are enslaved to the old Adamic sin nature and to Satan and his cosmic system. Trench makes the following excellent comment regarding the noun kosmos usage from the classical period to the NT, he writes, “ Kosmos has an interesting history for several reasons. Suidas traced its development through four successive meanings: ‘ Ho kosmos signifies in Scripture four things: goodly appearance, the whole, orderliness, magnitude.’ Originally kosmos meant ‘ornament,’ which is its primary meaning in the Old Testament and a meaning it has once in the New Testament (1 Pet. 3:3). Next kosmos came to mean ‘order’ or ‘arrangement’ and then ‘beauty’-as springing out of these-’goodly appearance,’ and ‘orderliness’ (according to Suidas) or (according to Hesychius) kallopismos , kataskeue , taxis , katastasis , and kallos . Pythagoras was the first to use kosmos to refer to the sum total of the material universe, and according to Plutarch, he did this to express his sense of the universe’s beauty and order. According to others, Pythagoras only used kosmos to refer to heaven because of its well-ordered arrangement, not to the whole material universe. This is often the way kosmos is used in Xenophon, Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Augustine described the Latin mundus (world) as ‘the arrangement and regulation of each single thing formed and distinguished,’ which is nearly the same as the Greek kosmos. This similarity gave rise to

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 24

Augustine’s profound play on words: ‘O munde immunde’ (O filthy clean). Thus Pliny stated: ‘What the Greeks with a name of embellishment have called kosmon , we have termed mundum from its perfect and absolute elegance.’ And Cicero said: ‘The Greeks well name it kosmon as noted for its variety, we refer to it as a shining mundum .’ From its use as referring to the material universe, kosmos came to refer to the external framework of things where man lives and moves and is himself the moral center. In that sense, kosmos is nearly equivalent to oikoumene , and then to the people themselves, to the sum total of persons living in the world. From that meaning an ethical use of kosmos developed that referred to all who were not of the ekklesia and who therefore were alienated from the life of God and were His enemies because of their wicked deeds” (Synonyms of the New Testament pages 120-121). Liddell and Scott list the following classical meanings for the word (page 985): (1) Order (2) Good order, good behavior (3) Of states, order, government (4) Ornament, decoration (5) Metaphorically, honor, credit (6) Ruler, regulator (7) World-order, universe (8) Metaphorically, microcosm (9) Of living beings in general (10) The known, or inhabited world (11) Men in general (12) The world estranged from God by sin (13) This present world, earth as opposed to heaven (14) Pythagorean name for six. The etymology of the noun kosmos is uncertain but it was a well-established term in the vocabulary of the Greeks from the time of Homer. In its original sense the idea of building or establishing. It seems to be linked with that of order (cf. Heracl. Fr., 124 [I, 102, 1 f., Diels] ): hoster sarma eike kechumenon ho kallistos ho kosmos , “the most beautiful order of the world is like a heap of items thrown together indiscriminately.” Herman Sasse lists the following categorical classical senses for kosmos (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament volume 3, pages 868-880): (1) “That which is well assembled or constructed from individual constituents” (Homer Odyssey 8, 492). (2) When the object of the building consists of individual men who are integrated into a whole, kosmos is a term for the order between men (Homer Odyssey 13, 76, order of rowers; Iliad 12, 225, order of battle; Plato Laws. VIII, 846d, order of life and constitution, which binds the citizens of a city-state). (3) “Order” in the general sense (Homer Iliad 2, 214; 10, 472; Odyssey 8, 179). (4) The concept of the beautiful inseparable from that of the ordered, “adornment” (usually of women) (Homer Iliad 14, 187; Herodotus V, 92; Plato Resp. II, 373b). (5) The cosmic order or system, the universe, also heaven (Plato Gorgias 507e- 508a). (6) Animated body, rational being, manifestation of God (Plato Timaeus 27a, 28a, 29a, 30a). (7) Earth, inhabited world, humanity (Stob. Ecl, I, 405, 1; Ditt. Or. 458, 40).

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 25

Kosmos was one of the most important terms in Greek philosophy. It has significance not merely in intellectual history but also in the history of ancient religion. The word was the basic term for the order whereby the sum of individual things is gathered into totality. In other words, it is the cosmic system in the sense of the cosmic order. Only later does kosmos come to denote the totality which is held together by this order meaning the world in the spatial sense, the cosmic system in the sense of the universe. Plato was the first to teach that the origin of the kosmos was due to a Demiurge meaning a Creator Who according to Sasse “formed the kosmos in accordance with the idea of the perfect living being” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, 875). He did this in empty space, the womb of all becoming (Timaeus 49a), which is also a kind of plastic material (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, 875). Aristotle’s conception of the world, which prevailed in the West for almost 2000 years, is of a spherical earth, surrounded by various layers of heavenly spheres, which rests unmoved in the centre of a spherical cosmos (On the Heavens [De Caelo] Book II, paragraph 2p, 285a, 32). The kosmos is the sum total of everything linked to space and time. Beyond that is the transcendent world of God which, removed from space and time, leads an unchangeable and thus perfect life. According to Aristotle, God has not fashioned the world. He is pure reason ( nous ) meditating on Himself. He moves everything, but He Himself remains unmoved and does not intervene in world events, which is contrary to Judaism and Christianity. The Stoics philosophers linked their cosmology with the thought of eternally returning same-ness, an idea that actually stems from oriental astrology. For the Stoics the cosmos does not owe its origin to a new beginning, but is the restoration of that which once was. The disappearance of the kosmos in a universal conflagration is not its end but that it arises anew in a cosmic rebirth. In Neo-Platonism the dualism, which one can already find in Plato, reaches its climax. The intelligible world ( kosmos ekeinos , that world) and the world of appearances ( kosmos houtos , this world) are mutually opposed. Although the empirical world is the beginning of evil, Plotinus can boast of its size, order and beauty; how much more praiseworthy, then, must be the true kosmos, the archetype of this world (Enneads 5, 1, 4; 5, 8; 3, 2, 2 ff.; cf. Herman Sasse Theological Dictionary of the New Testament III 879). In Hellenistic times when oriental cosmologies infiltrated Greek culture, the kosmos became a foreign country. It was no longer a harmonic unity, but is divided into 2 domains: (1) Lower earthly world (2) World of the stars. What happens on

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 26 earth depends on what happens in the world of the stars. The dealings of men are fundamentally meaningless. The Gnostics taught the separation between God and the kosmos as absolute. The kosmos was a creation of demonic powers from the chaos of darkness, with the help of light-elements according to them. It is an imitation of the construction of the world of light. They taught that God is that which is not world, the cosmos has been rid of every element of divinity (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, volume 1, page 522). It is purely material and fleshly, a fullness of evil (Corpus Hermeticum. 6, 4). According to the Gnostics, it is therefore not only foreign territory, but also a prison from which the pre-existent soul of man longs for liberation, for which the heavenly figure of light, the Son of God, gives him help. But they also taught that the kosmos was a mythological figure and is designated inter alia, “Son of God” (Corpus Hermeticum. 8, 5). It may be viewed as an animate organism, which is the image of God and of which man is the image (Corpus Hermeticum 10, 11). The OT Hebrew has no equivalent word to the Greek kosmos . The extent of how contrary such speculations of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Stoic philosophers, Hellenistic philosophers, and Gnosticism are to the Biblical idea becomes clearly evident from the fact that kosmos -in the sense of the material world is not used at all in the canonical writings of the LXX. It is used over 30 times in the Apocrypha. The word has the following usages in the LXX: (1) It is used for tsava ( abx ), “host of heaven” (Gen. 2:1; Dt. 4:19; 17:3; Is. 24:21; 40:26). (2) It is used in the sense of “adornment” for many Hebrew terms which either means this or are understood in this sense (Ex. 33:5-6; Jer. 2:32; 4:30; Ez. 7:20; 16:11); Ez. 23:40 for ` adhi ( ydu ), “ornament, jewelry”; Prov. 20:29 for tiph’ereth ( trapt ); Is. 3:24 for ma `aseh ( hcum ), “something set”; Is. 61:10 for keli (ylk), “garland”; Prov. 29:17 for ma `adhannim ( syndum ), “delight”. It is also used for “adornment” (also fig.) where there is no specific Hebrew original or in passages written in Greek (Is. 49:18; Prov. 28:17). OT Hebrew has no word for the universe. Philo used the word as a title for the Creator, Lord or King of the cosmos, which are totally alien to the NT. We can thus conclude that the word found its way into the Hellenistic Jews resulting its appearance in their liturgies. The noun kosmos appears 187 times in the NT. It occurs 9 times in Matthew, 3 times in Mark and Luke. The word is used extensively by the apostle John in his writings where it occurs 79 times in his Gospel, 23 times in 1 John, once in 2 John and 3 times in Revelation. Luke employs the word once in Acts 17:24. James uses the word 5 times and Peter utilizes the word 3 times in his 1st epistle and 5 times in

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 27 his 2nd epistle. Paul employs the word often where it appears 9 times in Romans, 21 times in 1 Corinthians, 3 times in 2 Corinthians, 3 times in Galatians, 3 times in Ephesians, 1 in Philippians, 4 times in Colossians, 3 times in 1 Timothy, 5 times in Hebrews. In the NT, as in secular Greek and Hellenistic Judaism, the noun kosmos denotes the world, the world system or world order in some sense. The only exception is in 1 Pt. 3:3 where it is used in the old classical sense of adornment of women. The noun kosmos and is the primary word in the Greek New Testament for the “world.” Kosmos means “order, ornament, adornment, an orderly arrangement. Our word “cosmetics” comes from this word. In the New Testament it has three main uses: (1) The orderly arrangement of the heavens or the earth and all things in their complex order and composition as created by God, created in perfect order and subject to the laws God established to govern its operation.(Matt. 13:35; John 21:25; Acts 17:24). (2) The cosmos (Greek, kosmos) may also refer to the world in its arrangement of the inhabitants of the earth in tribes and nations or peoples (Acts 17:26; John 3:16; 1 Cor. 4:9; 1 John 2:2; 2 Pet. 2:5). (3) Kosmos is used of a vast system and arrangement of human affairs, earthly goods, godless governments, conflicts, riches, pleasures, culture, education, world religions, the cults and the occult dominated and negatively affected by Satan who is god of this satanic cosmos. This system is promoted by Satan, conformed to his ideals, aims, methods, and character, and stands perpetually in opposition to God the cause of Christ. This world system is used to seduce men away from God and the person of Christ. It is anti-God, anti-Christ, and anti-Bible, and very anti-humanity though it often appears as humanitarian as part of Satan’s masquerade as an angel of light. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology volume 1, page 524): (1) Universe, the world as the sum-total of created things (2) The world as the sphere or place of human life, the earth (3) Humanity, the world of men. Theological Dictionary of New Testament (Volume 3, pages 883-895): (1) Adornment (2) The universe, the sum total of creating being. (3) The abode of men, the theatre of history, the inhabited world, earth. A Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (pages 445-447): (1) Adornment, adorning (2) The world as the sum total of everything here and now, the universe (3) The world as the sum total of all beings above the level of animals (4) The world as the earth, the planet upon which we live. (5) The world as mankind (6) The world as the scene of earthly joys, possessions, cares, sufferings (7) The world, and everything that belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God, i.e., lost in sin, wholly at odds with anything divine, ruined and depraved (8) Totality, sum total.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 28

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (Volume 2): (1) The universe as an ordered structure (page 1). (2) The surface of the earth as the dwelling place of mankind, in contrast with the heavens above and the world below (page 10). (3) The system of practices and standards associated with secular society (that is, without reference to any demands or requirements of God) (page 508). (4) People associated with a world system and estranged from God (page 107). (5) An object, which serves to adorn or beautify (page 75). (6) A great sum of something, implying an almost incredible totality (page 600). (7) A supernatural power having some particular role in controlling the destiny and activities of human beings (page 147-148). The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (page 356-357): (1) Ornament, decoration, adornment (2) The world, the universe (3) The circle of the earth, the earth (4) The inhabitants of the world (5) The ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ (6) Worldly affairs; the aggregate of things earthly; the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which, although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ (7) Any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort In Romans 3:6, the noun kosmos refers to the inhabitants of the earth arranged in tribes and nations or peoples (Acts 17:26; John 3:16; 1 Cor. 4:9; 1 John 2:2; 2 Pet. 2:5). The word refers to all the unsaved inhabitants of the earth who are enslaved to the old Adamic sin nature and to Satan and his cosmic system. There are two figures of speech contained in this expression. The first is “synecdoche of the whole” where the world is put for the persons in all parts of it and the second is the “metonymy of the subject” where the world is put for its inhabitants. The word functions as an accusative direct object meaning it is receiving the action of the verb krino . The definite article preceding the noun kosmos is “generic” meaning that it distinguishes unsaved human beings as a class from those who are saved. Therefore, we will translate the articular form of the noun kosmos , “ the unsaved inhabitants of the cosmic system .” Completed corrected translation of Romans 3:6: “ Absolutely not! For how will God condemn the unsaved inhabitants of the cosmic system?” So in Romans 3:5-6, Paul is saying that God is not unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon unrighteous Jews when their unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness since how could He judge the world? God would be barred from judging the world if He were unrighteous. This thought is ridiculous since He is their Perfect, Holy Creator and so He would not

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 29 be unrighteous or unfair for exercising His righteous indignation upon unsaved human beings. The fact that God is the Creator of man in and of itself gives Him the right to exercise His righteous indignation upon disobedient and sinful creatures. The fact that unregenerate man will receive eternal condemnation in the lake of fire forever and ever is a righteous judgment since as sinners they can never be justified before a holy God and have rejected God’s only provision for sin, which is the Person and Finished Work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. God who is holy and cannot tolerate sin is justified in throwing His creatures into the lake of fire for rebelling against Him but also God, who as to His nature, is love, did everything He could to prevent any of His creatures from going to the lake of fire forever and ever for their rebellion against Him. The fact that God did not immediately deposit all mankind in the lake of fire for their disobedience is incontrovertible evidence that God loves His creatures and desires none of them to go to the lake of fire. The fact that God the Father sent His Son into the world to become a human being to satisfy His righteous demands that the sin of men be judged is also incontrovertible evidence that God loves His creatures.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 30

Romans: Romans 3:7-Paul Exposes the Contradiction in the Judaizers’ Argument and their Rejection of Him

In Romans 3:1, the apostle Paul asks two direct questions of his opponents the Judaizers. The Judaizers originated with the Pharisees and those who adhered to their teaching and were composed of both believing and unbelieving Jews who taught strict adherence to the 613 mandates found in the Mosaic Law as well as the oral traditions of the Rabbis, which are now, documented in the Mishna and the Talmud. The Judaizers derived their name from the fact that they believed and taught that in order to be saved one must become a Jew through circumcision and strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and the oral traditions of the Rabbis. Many of the Judaizers were believers since Acts 6:7, 15:5 and 21:20 state that many of the priests and Pharisees who were teachers of the Mosaic Law believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation but after salvation they still adhered to the Mosaic Law rather than the mystery doctrine for the church age that Paul was teaching. The Judaizers taught that one had to observe and practice the Mosaic Law in order to get saved whereas Paul taught salvation by grace through faith in Christ and not through the works of the Mosaic Law (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16). Galatians 2:16, “Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” The Judaizers followed Paul throughout his missionary journey’s seeking to discredit and destroy his ministry (Acts 13:45; 17:5). Paul denounces their teaching in the book of Galatians since they taught a “ different gospel ” according to Gal. 1:6 and “ distorted the gospel of Christ ” (Gal. 1:7). In Philippians 3:1-3 Paul issues a warning to the Philippians to beware of the Judaizers and their legalistic teaching, in which they taught that man must be circumcised in order to be saved. Philippians 3:2, “Beware of those dogs, beware of those evil workers, beware of the mutilation.” As we noted, in Romans 3:1, the first direct question pertains to Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:17-24 regarding the Jew’s false security in his racial heritage and anticipates the objection of the Judaizers. It asks the question: “If the Jews are just as worthy of eternal condemnation as the Gentiles since their racial heritage cannot save them, then what advantage is there to being a Jew?” The second direct question pertains to Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:25-29 regarding the Jew’s false security in circumcision and anticipates another objection of the Judaizers who were champions of circumcision (Acts 15; Philippians 3:2). It

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 31 asks the question: “If the Jews are just as worthy of eternal condemnation as the Gentiles since circumcision cannot save them, then what advantage is there to being circumcised?” In Romans 3:2, Paul answers his own question in order to anticipate the objections of the Judaizers by writing that the primary advantage of being a Jew was that God had entrusted the Old Testament Scriptures to the care of the Jews. Then, in Romans 3:3, Paul poses another question to his readership and answers this question as well, teaching that Jewish unfaithfulness does not render inoperative God’s faithfulness. In Romans 3:4, Paul emphatically negates any idea of Jewish unfaithfulness rendering inoperative God’s faithfulness and declares that God will be vindicated in His judgment of men. Then, in Romans 3:5, Paul poses another question to the unsaved Jew that rejects the idea that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation against Jewish unbelievers if their unrighteousness makes conspicuous God’s righteousness. In Romans 3:6 Paul emphatically rejects the idea that God is unrighteous and responds with another question that rejects the idea, asking the rhetorical question as to how could God judge the world then? In Romans 3:7, Paul picks up the argument of his opponents that appears in Romans 3:5. He argues that if God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness if their unrighteousness makes conspicuous God’s righteousness, then why were they condemning him as a sinner if according to their argument God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness!? Wouldn’t it be unrighteous to judge me as a sinner when according to your argument God would be unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness when Jewish unrighteous makes more conspicuous God’s righteousness. Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” “But ” is the “adversative” use of the conjunction de ( deV) (deh), which introduces another rhetorical question that parallels and stands in contrast with the objection of Paul’s opponents, the Judaizers that appears in the protasis of Romans 3:5. As we noted, in Romans 3:3-4, Paul teaches that Jewish unfaithfulness does not render inoperative God’s faithfulness to Israel and that God will be vindicated when He judges unsaved mankind. In Romans 3:5, Paul addresses another objection of the Judaizers that if Jewish unrighteousness magnifies the righteousness of God, then, God is unrighteous and not justified in exercising His righteous indignation towards them. He addresses this objection since it could be implied from Romans 3:3-4 that the unrighteousness of unregenerate Jews serves

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 32 to demonstrate the righteousness of God. The idea that Jewish unrighteous conduct could ever magnify the righteousness of God is strictly “human viewpoint” Paul says at the end of Romans 3:5. Now, in Romans 3:7 Paul continues the argument raised by the Judaizers that is noted in the protasis of Romans 3:5, namely, that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness when Jewish unrighteousness makes more conspicuous God’s righteousness. He refuted this with the negative particle me , “ No !” in Romans 3:5 and the expression me genoito , “Absolutely not !” in Romans 3:6. Paul’s rhetorical question in Romans 3:7 points out the contradiction with this argument and their treatment of him as a sinner who taught lies. Therefore, Paul is saying, “why are you condemning me as a sinner if according to your argument God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness when their unrighteousness makes more conspicuous God’s righteousness!?” Therefore, we will translate the conjunction de , “ but .” “If ” is the conditional particle ei ( ei)) (i), which introduces the protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The first class condition is conveyed “explicitly” with the conditional particle ei , “ if ” and the indicative mood of the verb perisseuo , “ abounded ” in order to introduce the protasis. The apodasis is introduced implicitly without a structural marker and appears in the rhetorical question ti eti kago hos hamartolos krinomai , “why am I also still being judged as a sinner? ” His answer to this rhetorical question appears in Romans 3:8. Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” In Romans 3:7, the basic relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is “evidence-inference.” Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” The evidence is that Paul’s lie glorified God and the inference is that why was he still condemned by his opponents when they argued in Romans 3:5 that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness when their unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness. As we have noted earlier in our studies of the book of Romans, the idea behind the first class condition is not “since” but rather, “if-and let us assume for the sake of argument, then...” The use of the first class condition is a debater’s technique and is used as a tool of persuasion. Paul picks up once again the argument of the Judaizers that appears in the protasis of Romans 3:5 and which argument was in response to his statement in

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 33

Romans 3:3 that Jewish unbelief does not render inoperative God’s faithfulness to His promises to Israel. He takes this argument in Romans 3:5 and uses it against them asking in the protasis of Romans 3:7 that if through his lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, then why was he still condemned as a sinner by them if they argued that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness when their unrighteousness makes more conspicuous God’s righteousness?! We will translate the conditional particle ei , “ if-and let us assume for the sake of argument, then …” Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” “Through my lie” is composed of the following: (1) Preposition en ( e)n ), “through ” (2) Dative neuter singular form of the definite article ho ( o() (3) Dative neuter 1 st person singular form of the adjective emos ( e)mov$ ) (em-os), “ my ” (4) Dative neuter singular form of the noun pseusma ( yeu~sma ) (psyoos-mah), “ lie .” The noun pseusma appears only once in the Greek New Testament, here in Romans 3:7. The word points back to Paul’s statement in Romans 3:4 where he says that God must be acknowledged as true but each member of the human race a liar. Paul’s statement in Romans 3:4 alludes to the fact that all men have a sinful nature as he points out in Romans 5:12-19 and thus the word speaks of the total depravity of the entire human race, which Paul has just demonstrated in Romans 1:18-2:29. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul demonstrates that the Gentiles are unrighteous by virtue of their sinful conduct and failure to worship God in light of God’s self- revelation in creation as well as their failure to obey the moral law inherent within them. In Romans 2:1-29, he demonstrates that the Jews are unrighteous as well as manifested in their failure to obey perfectly the written Law of God and committing the same sins that the Gentiles committed. In Romans 3:9-20, Paul summarizes his statements in Romans 1:18-2:29 and teaches the universal unrighteousness of mankind, both Jew and Gentile. However, in Romans 3:7, the “ lie ” that Paul speaks of refers specifically to his teaching that salvation was by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by the works of the Law! Remember, Paul is speaking from the perspective of his opponents, the Judaizers who considered salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by keeping the works of the Law as a “lie.” Grace is all that God is free to do in imparting unmerited blessings to those who trust in Jesus Christ as Savior based upon the merits of Christ and His death on the Cross. Grace is God treating us in a manner that we don’t deserve and excludes any human works in order to acquire eternal salvation or blessing from God.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 34

Romans 3:21-26, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Galatians 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” It means that God saved us and blessed us despite ourselves and not according to anything that we do but rather saved us and blessed us because of the merits of Christ and His work on the Cross. Grace excludes any human merit in salvation and blessing (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) and gives the Creator all the credit and the creature none. Titus 3:5-7, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.” By means of faith, we accept the grace of God, which is a non-meritorious system of perception, which is in total accord with the grace of God. Grace and faith are totally compatible with each other and inseparable (1 Tim. 1:14) and complement one another (Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:8). Romans 4:13-17, “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, ‘A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU’) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 35

Grace, faith and salvation are all the gift of God and totally exclude all human works and ability (Eph. 2:8-9). Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” The message of God's saving act in Christ is described as the “ gospel of the grace of God ” (Acts 20:24), and the “ word of His grace ” (Acts 20:32; cf. 14:3). By His grace, God justifies the undeserving and unworthy through faith in His Son Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24). Grace is an absolute and is no longer grace if we are saved on the basis of human works (Rom. 11:6). A Christian is someone who is a “ partaker ” of the grace of God (Phil. 1:7) and he is to live by the same principle of grace after salvation (Col. 2:6; Rom. 6:4) and is the Christian's sphere of existence (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; Col. 1:2). The believer who rejects this principle is said to have “ fallen from grace ,” (Gal. 5:1-5). God in His grace and love disciplines the believer in order to get them back in fellowship with Himself (Heb. 12:5-12) and also trains the believer through undeserved suffering in order to achieve spiritual growth (2 Cor. 12:7-11). The Word of God, which is the mind of Christ, manifests the grace of God and the application of it will reproduce the beautiful, virtuous character of Christ in the believer (Galatians 5:22-23). Therefore, since God has dealt graciously with the believer, the believer is in turn commanded to be gracious with all members of the human race, both believers and unbelievers (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13; 4:6; 1 Thess. 3:12). The believer is commanded to “ grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ ” (2 Pet. 3:18). The believer experiences the grace of God while in fellowship with God, which is accomplished by obedience to the Word of God. The Judaizers condemned Paul’s teaching of grace, twisting it so that they taught that grace gives license to sin, which is called by theologians, “antinomianism.” The term “antinomianism” comes from the Greek anti , “against” and the noun nomos , “law,” thus the expression literally means, “against the law.” Thus, we can see that Paul was accused by the Judaizers that he was “against the Law” and that his message of grace gave one a license to sin when in reality Paul taught that grace is a license to obey and serve God. Romans 7:12, “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” The Judaizers were accusing Paul of teaching that the more a person sins, the more God is glorified, the more he lies and the more he glorifies God’s truthfulness, which is outrageous. The charge of antinomianism that was leveled

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 36 against Paul was of course false since Paul taught that God’s grace is so that we might obey and serve God and was not a license to sin as the Judaizers against him of teaching. Thus, the Judaizers accused Paul of teaching lies. Romans 6:15, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” In Romans 3:7, Paul employs the possessive adjective emos , “ my ” as a possessive pronoun since Greek does not have a distinct possessive pronoun. Instead, it usually employs either the possessive adjective ( ejmov$, sov$, hJmevtero$, uJmevtero$) or the genitive of the personal pronoun. In Romans 3:7, Paul employs the possessive adjective as a possessive pronoun emos . The definite article preceding the noun pseusma , “ lie ” is employed with the possessive pronoun use of the adjective emos in order to denote possession. Together, they indicate that the lie “belongs to” Paul. The preposition en is a marker of means and the noun pseusma is a dative instrumental of means. Together, they are used to indicate the means by which the action of the verb perisseuo , “ abound ” is accomplished. Therefore, they indicate that Paul’s lie was the means by which the truth of God abounded. Again, the Judaizers described Paul’s presentation of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as a lie. We will translate the prepositional phrase en to emo pseusmati , “ by means of my lie .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:7: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie .” Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” “The truth ” is articular nominative feminine singular form of the noun aletheia (a)lhvqeia ) (al-ay-thi-a), which refers to God’s attribute of veracity or truth that expresses itself through faithfulness to His promises contained in His Word and was manifested in the Person of Jesus Christ. John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Ephesians 4:20-21, “But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus.” The noun aletheia points us back to Romans 3:4 in which Paul calls mankind “liars ,” which emphasizes the falsehood of unregenerate mankind that denies that God has been faithful in fulfilling His promises to Israel. The definite article preceding the noun aletheia is “monadic” emphasizing that truth is “unique” since truth is the monopoly of God as a result of being an attribute inherent in the nature of each member of the Trinity. We will translate the articular form of the noun aletheia , “ truth .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 37

“Of God ” is the articular genitive masculine singular form of the noun theos (qeov$ ), which refers to the Trinity and the definite article indicates that the Trinity is “well-known” to Paul’s Jewish readership since They are revealed in the Old Testament canon of Scripture. The noun theos functions as a “possessive genitive” indicating that truth “belongs to” God since it is an attribute of each member of the Trinity. We will translate the articular form of the noun theos , “ God’s .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:7: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie God’s truth.” “Abounded ” is the 3 rd person singular aorist active indicative form of the verb perisseuo ( perisseuvw ) (per-is-syoo-o), which means, “to achieve fame.” Depending on the context, the verb perisseuo means “to have the abundant presence of something, to abound, to be extremely rich in something, to be abundant, to excel.” The verb perisseuo and its cognates suggest being present in a way that the given space is unable to obtain. Perisseuo is used intransitively from the time of Hesiod in the sense of to be over and above, go beyond, outflank, be more than enough, remain over, abound. In classical Greek, the -euo ending denotes the possession of quality, thus perisseuo indicates the abundant presence of something. Thucydides quotes Pericles as using the word for the “abundant” reason for his belief (Thucydides 2.65). It also used in the negative sense of a man’s excessive riches (Diogenes Oenoandensis 64). In classical literature it is primarily used as an intransitive verb. Perisseuo when used intransitively of things means: (1) “to be more than enough, to be left over” (2) “to be present in abundance, to have something in abundance” (3) “to be extremely rich or abundant, to overflow” (4) “to grow, to increase.” When used intransitively of persons, the word means: (1) “to have an abundance, to abound, to be rich in something” (2) “to be outstanding, to be prominent, to excel” (3) “to progress in something.” When used transitively, the verb means: (1) “to cause to abound, to make super- rich” (20 “to furnish one richly so that he has an abundance.” Perisseuo when used transitively of persons means: (1) “to receive something in great abundance” (2) “to cause someone to abound in something” (3) “to cause one to excel in something.” The verb form of perisseuo is found infrequently in the LXX, but other related terms from the periss - stem occur with regularity, especially in Ecclesiastes. The LXX uses the periss - stem almost exclusively for the Hebrew root yathar ( rty ), “to be left over, remain” (LXX 1 Kings 2:36).

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 38

Most uses in the LXX refer to personal advantage or gain, which Solomon commonly uses in Ecclesiastes. Perisseuo means “to have precedence” (1 Macc. 3:30), “posterity” (1 S. 2:33, 36), but elsewhere “to have abundance” (Sir. 11:12). The word is found 39 times in the Greek New Testament and is found primarily in the Synoptics and Pauline writings. The general meaning of the verb in the NT continues the classical and LXX usage. The verb occurs primarily in the Pauline corpus. Perisseuo is used primarily in a quantitative sense meaning “to increase, to grow.” Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (volume 2): (1) to be or exist in abundance, with the implication of being considerably more than what would be expected, thus “to abound, to be in abundance, to be a lot of, to exist in a large quantity, to be left over.” (2) to cause something to exist in an abundance, thus “to provide in abundance, to provide a great deal of, to cause to be abundant.” (3) to have such an abundance as to be more than sufficient, thus “to have (much) more than enough, to have an overabundance.” (4) a degree which is considerably in excess of some point on an implied or explicit scale of extent, thus “very great, excessive, extremely, emphatic, surpassing, all the more, much greater.” (5) to cause an increase in the degree of some experience or state, thus “to cause to be intense, to cause to be more, to cause to grow.” (6) to experience superior benefit or advantage, implying some type of comparison, thus “to have a greater benefit, to experience a superior advantage.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (page 505): (1) Intransitively and prop. To exceed a fixed number or measure; to be over and above a certain number or measure (2) to be over, to remain (3) to exist or be at hand in abundance (4) to abound, overflow; to be abundantly furnished with, to have in abundance, abound in (a thing); to be in affluence; to be pre-eminent, to excel (5) Transitively, to make to abound (6) to furnish one richly so that he has abundance (7) to make abundant or excellent. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “ perisseuo is used intransitively (a) ‘of exceeding a certain number, or measure, to be over, to remain,’ of the fragments after feeding the multitude (cf. perisseuma ), Luke 9:17; John 6:12-13; ‘to exist in abundance’; as of wealth, Luke 12:15; 21:4; of food, 15:17. In this sense it is used also of consolation, 2 Cor 1:5, of the effect of a gift sent to meet the need of saints, 2 Cor 9:12; of rejoicing, Phil 1:26; of what comes or falls to the lot of a person in large measure, as of the grace of God and the gift by the grace of Christ, Rom 5:15, of the sufferings of Christ, 2 Cor 1:5. In Mark 12:44 and Luke 21:4, the RV has ‘superfluity.’ (b) ‘to redound to, or to turn out abundantly for something,’ as of the liberal effects of poverty, 2 Cor 8:2; in Rom

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 39

3:7, argumentatively of the effects of the truth of God, as to whether God's truthfulness becomes more conspicuous and His glory is increased through man's untruthfulness; of numerical increase, Acts 16:5. (c) ‘to be abundantly furnished, to abound in a thing,’ as of material benefits, Luke 12:15; Phil 4:18 of spiritual gifts; 1 Cor 14:12, or ‘to be pre-eminent, to excel, to be morally better off,’ as regards partaking of certain meats; 1 Cor 8:8, ‘are we the better’, ‘to abound’ in hope, Rom 15:13; the work of the Lord, 1 Cor 15:58; faith and grace, 2 Cor 8:7; thanksgiving, Col 2:7; walking so as to please God, Phil 1:9; 1 Thess 4:1,10; of righteousness, Matt 5:20; of the Gospel, as the ministration of righteousness 2 Cor 3:9, ‘exceed.’ It is used transitively, in the sense of ‘to make to abound,’ e. g., to provide a person richly so that he has ‘abundance,’ as of spiritual truth, Matt 13:12; the right use of what God has entrusted to us, 25:29; the power of God in conferring grace, 2 Cor 9:8; Eph 1:8; to ‘make abundant’ or to cause to excel, as of the effect of grace in regard to thanksgiving, 2 Cor 4:15; His power to make us ‘to abound’ in love, 1 Thess 3:12.” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (pages 650-651): (1) Intransitively (a) of things, be more than enough, be left over; be present in abundance; be extremely rich or abundant, overflow; grow (b) of persons, have an abundance, abound, be rich; be outstanding, be prominent, excel (2) Transitively, cause to abound, make extremely rich (a) of things, that one greatly increases (b) of persons who receive something in great abundance. In Romans 3:7, the verb perisseuo is used in relation to God’s attribute of truth being manifested before men. As we noted the verb perisseuo denotes the abundance of something. Therefore, in Romans 3:7, the word speaks of an “abundant” manifestation of the attribute of God’s truth by means of Paul’s presentation of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The best English word to convey this idea would be “famous,” which refers today to having a wide-spread reputation, being renowned or celebrated. Therefore, in Romans 3:7, the verb perisseuo means, “to achieve fame” in the sense of God’s attribute of truth gained renown or was celebrated by means of Paul’s message of grace, which the Judaizers called a “ lie .” Translating this word “conspicuous” does not reflect the sense of the verb, which as we noted before speaks of an abundance of something. The phrase “to achieve fame” conveys the concept of abundance in that for someone to be famous means that are widely or abundantly known for conspicuous merit. The aorist tense is “constative” describing in summary fashion the action of God’s truth achieving fame by means of Paul’s presentation of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which the Judaizers called a “ lie .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 40

The constative aorist says that God’s truth “did” achieve fame by means of Paul’s presentation of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The active voice means that Paul produces the action of the verb in causing God’s truth achieving fame by means of his presentation of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ apart from the works of the Law, which the Judaizers called a “ lie .” The indicative mood is employed with the condition particle ei , “ if-and let us assume for the sake of argument ” in order to form the protasis of a first class condition, which indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. We will translate the verb perisseuo , “ achieved fame .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:7: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie God’s truth achieved fame .” Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” “To His glory ” is composed of the following: (1) Preposition eis ( ei)$), “ to ” (2) Articular accusative feminine singular form of the noun doxa ( dovca ), “ glory ” (3) Genitive masculine 3 rd person singular form of the personal pronoun autos (au)tov$ ), “ His .” The noun doxa was found in the writings of Homer and the historian Herodotus and is derived from the verb dokeo meaning “to think, to believe.” The sense of the noun became “belief, opinion,’ and later “reputation.” The subjective sense can be applied in many ways. It may imply “expectation” (Homer Iliad, 10, 324; Odyssey 11, 344; Xenophon Anabasis II, 1, 18), but it may equally well imply the “opinion” or “view which I represent” (Xenophon Vect. 5, 2). In this sense the term becomes a philosophical catchword for a “philosophical opinion,” whether sound or unsound, true or false (Plato Phileb. 36c; Plato Theaet, 187b). Since dokeo usually denotes “good standing,” the objective sense is mostly used favorably for “reputation” or “renown” (Demosthenes Or. 2, 15). Sometimes doxa can imply “expectation,” and it was used as a catchword in philosophy meaning “philosophical opinion.” From the latter the word came to be used for a “philosophical tenet.” Depending upon the context, doxa could mean “light, radiance.” Josephus followed the customary Greek usage of the word. In his writings, doxa could mean, “view.” In Philo the word meant “a correct or false opinion, or philosophy tent.” Josephus employed the word in the sense of the “honor” or “glory” which accrues to man and in some passages doxa had the meaning of “splendor.” The LXX records doxa 450 times translating 25 different words in the Hebrew and in the majority of these occurrences doxa corresponds to the Hebrew kavodh (dobk ), “glory” (Ex. 40:34; Psa. 3:3; Ez. 3:12).

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 41

The term kavodh originally meant, “that which makes something heavy, heaviness, weight, dignity.” It rapidly acquired the meaning of “honor, splendor, and power.” This has become the principle definition in the OT (Gen. 45:13; Ex. 16:10; Lev. 9:6, 23). Moses asked the Lord to see His glory and the Lord responded with a description of what His glory entails in Exodus 33:18-19 . Exodus 33:18-19, “Then Moses said, ‘I pray You show me your glory!’ And He (the Lord) said, ‘I Myself will make all my goodness (divine perfection) pass before you, and will proclaim the Person of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion .’” The Lord goes on to say in Exodus 34:6-7a. Exodus 34:6-7a, “Then the Lord passed by in front of him (Moses) and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding grace and truth; Who keeps grace for thousands, Who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin .” Therefore, from these passages, we can see that doxa is used for the manifested character and nature of God, His perfect integrity. It refers to Who and What God is and His modus operandi . It also was used in the OT for the Shekinah Glory or the visible presence of the Lord in Israel in both the Tabernacle and the Temple (Ex. 29:42; 40:34; 1 Kings 8:11; 1 Chron. 5:14; 7:1; Isa. 6:3; Ezek. 1:28). The glory was also manifested ultimately in the Person and Finished Work of Jesus Christ in hypostatic union during the 1st Advent (Matt. 17:2-5; John 1:14; 1 Cor. 11:7; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6; Heb. 2:9; Rev. 19:1, 7). Doxa refers to the visible manifestation of the perfect character and integrity and grace policy of God towards all mankind. It refers to His perfect reputation and character. Kavodh also functions in a secular sense for whatever gives an individual “honor, prestige, reputation,” or “influence.” In these cases the term(s) may refer to the doxa of men rather than God. If in relation to man kavodh denotes that which makes him impressive and demands recognition, whether in terms of material possessions or striking gravitas , in relation to God it implies that which makes God impressive to man, the force of His self-manifestation. As everywhere attested in the OT, God is intrinsically invisible. Here, and in biblical and biblically influenced Greek as a whole, we hardly ever find doxa used for opinion. Kavodh cannot bear such a sense, and it is extremely rare for doxa in the Bible.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 42

The meaning of “glory or honor ascribed to someone, reputation” for doxa is very rarely found in the OT books. Since kavodh can have the sense of “power, splendor, human glory,” doxa takes on the same meaning. The primary meaning of the LXX word, however, does not emerge except with reference to God. The term doxa always speaks of one thing. The doxa theou is the “divine glory ” which reveals the nature of God in creation and in His acts, which fill both heaven and earth. God’s power is an expression of the His divine nature and the honor ascribed to God by man is finally no other than an affirmation of this nature. In the LXX doxa acquires its distinctive sense as a term for this divine nature or essence either in its invisible or its perceptible form. The noun doxa was used for the both the glory of the Father and the Son in the NT where it is employed 168 times. The NT use of doxa follows the LXX rather than classical Greek usage. As in the LXX, doxa in the NT had the senses of “reputation,” and “power,” but the word is also used strictly in the NT to express the “divine mode of being.” In the NT, as in the LXX, the meanings “divine honor, divine splendor, and divine power” and “visible divine radiance” are employed. The old meaning of “opinion” that doxa had in classical literature disappeared by the time of the Greek New Testament. The meanings “repute, honor” still appear in the Greek NT. There are also the added meanings “radiance, glory,” which is not found in secular Greek but was present in Josephus. It has the meaning “reflection” in the sense of “image.” The glory of God is revealed through creation (Matt. 6:29; Luke 12:27; Rom. 1:29) since it is a manifestation of His omnipotence and wisdom. The glory of God is also revealed in and through believers (John 17:22; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:18; 3:16; Col. 1:11, 27; 2 Pet. 1:3, 7, 11; Heb. 2:10). The divine motive is for His own glory, not for self-praise. This is not arrogance for it is perfectly compatible with God’s infinite attributes. God recognizes His glory, and He claims all glory in the interest of absolute truth. All things exist for the glory of God (Ex. 33:18; Psa. 19:1; Isa. 6:3; Matt. 6:13; Acts 7:2; Rom. 1:23; 9:23; Heb. 1:3; 1 Pet. 4:14). God’s glory was before all creation (John 17:5), and it will exist after human history as it did before. The Finished Work of the humanity of Christ on the cross expressed the glory of God since it manifested the attributes of God, His sovereignty, righteousness, justice, love, omniscience and omnipotence. The resurrection, ascension and session expressed the glory of God since it manifested the attributes of God’s love, righteousness, justice, truth, faithfulness and omnipotence.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 43

Louw and Nida list the following meanings for the noun doxa (Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, volume 2): (1) The quality of splendid, remarkable appearance – ‘glory, splendor’ (page 696). (2) The state of brightness or shining – ‘brightness, shining, radiance’ (page 175). (3) A manifestation of power characterized by glory – ‘glorious power, amazing might’ (page 682). (4) To speak of something as being unusually fine and deserving honor – ‘to praise, to glorify, praise’ (page 430). (5) Honor as an element in the assignment of status to a person – ‘honor, respect, status’ (page 734). (6) A state of being great and wonderful – ‘greatness, glory’ (page 736). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (pages 203-204): (1) Brightness, splendor, radiance (2) Magnificence, splendor, anything that catches the eye (3) Fame, renown, honor (4) Of angelic beings. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “ doxa , ‘glory’ (from dokeo , ‘to seem’), primarily signifies an opinion, estimate, and hence, the honor resulting from a good opinion. It is used (I) (a) of the nature and acts of God in self- manifestation, i. e., what He essentially is and does, as exhibited in whatever way he reveals Himself in these respects, and particularly in the person of Christ, in whom essentially His ‘glory’ has ever shone forth and ever will do, (John 17:5,24; Heb. 1:3); it was exhibited in the character and acts of Christ in the days of His flesh, (John 1:14; John 2:11); at Cana both His grace and His power were manifested, and these constituted His ‘glory’, so also in the resurrection of Lazarus (11:4,40); the ‘glory’ of God was exhibited in the resurrection of Christ, (Rom. 6:4), and in His ascension and exaltation, (1 Pet. 1:21), likewise on the Mount of Transfiguration, (2 Pet. 1:17). In (Rom. 1:23) His ‘everlasting power and Divinity’ are spoken of as His ‘glory,’ i. e., His attributes and power as revealed through creation; in (Rom. 3:23) the word denotes the manifested perfection of His character, especially His righteousness, of which all men fall short; in (Col. 1:11) ‘the might of His glory’ signifies the might which is characteristic of His ‘glory’; in (Eph. 1:6,12,14), ‘the praise of the glory of His grace’ and ‘the praise of His glory’ signify the due acknowledgement of the exhibition of His attributes and ways; in (Eph. 1:17), ‘the Father of glory’ describes Him as the source from whom all divine splendor and perfection proceed in their manifestation, and to whom they belong; (b) of the character and ways of God as exhibited through Christ to and through believers, (2 Cor. 3:18) and (4:6); (c) of the state of blessedness into which believers are to enter hereafter through being brought into the likeness of Christ, e. g., (Rom. 8:18,21; Phil. 3:21) (RV, ‘the body of His glory’); (1 Pet. 5:1,10; Rev. 21:11); (d) brightness or splendor, (1) supernatural, emanating from God (as in the shekinah ‘glory,’ in the pillar of cloud and in the Holy of Holies, e. g., (Exod. 16:10; 25:22)), (Luke 2:9; Acts 22:11; Rom. 9:4; 2 Cor. 3:7; Jas. 2:1); in (Titus

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 44

2:13) it is used of Christ's return, ‘the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’ (RV); cf. (Phil. 3:21), above; (2) natural, as of the heavenly bodies, (1 Cor. 15:40,41); (II) of good reputation, praise, honor, (Luke 14:10) (RV, ‘glory,’ for KJV, ‘worship’); (John 5:41) (RV, ‘glory,’ for KJV, ‘honor’); (7:18; 8:50; 12:43) (RV, ‘glory,’ for KJV, ‘praise’); (2 Cor. 6:8) (RV, ‘glory,’ for KJV ‘honor’); (Phil. 3:19; Heb. 3:3); in (1 Cor. 11:7), of man as representing the authority of God, and of woman as rendering conspicuous the authority of man; in (1 Thes. 2:6), ‘glory’ probably stands, by metonymy, for material gifts, an honorarium, since in human estimation ‘glory’ is usually expressed in things material. The word is used in ascriptions of praise to God, e. g.. (Luke 17:18; John 9:24), RV, ‘glory’ (KJV, ‘praise’); (Acts 12:23); as in doxologies (lit., ‘glory- words’), e. g., (Luke 2:14; Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Rev. 1:6).” The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (pages 155-156): (1) Opinion, judgment, view (2) Opinion, estimate, whether good or bad, concerning someone; in prof. Writ. Generally one, and as resulting from that, praise, honor, glory (3) Splendor, brightness; magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace; majesty; a most glorious condition, most exalted state. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised lists the following (page 104): (1) A seeming; appearance; a notion, imagination, opinion; the opinion which obtains respecting one; reputation, credit, honor, glory (2) Honorable consideration (3) Praise, glorification, honor (4) Dignity, majesty (5) A glorious manifestation, glorious working (6) Dignitaries (7) Glorification in a future state of bliss (8) Pride, ornament (9) Splendid array, pomp, magnificence (10) Radiance, dazzling luster. In Romans 3:7, the noun doxa refers to the adoring praise, recognition and worshipful thanksgiving that is directed towards God by those who have responded to Paul’s presentation of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which the Judaizers called a “lie.” The noun doxa refers to exalted praise, honor and recognition bestowed by men upon God as a result of accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior after hearing Paul present the gospel. The word speaks of the praise that God received from men when they accepted by faith Jesus Christ as their Savior after hearing Paul proclaim the gospel. It refers to the recognition that God received from men who were saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The definite article preceding the noun doxa is employed with the intensive personal pronoun autos , “ His ” in order to denote possession. The preposition eis is a marker of result indicating that God was glorified “as a result” of His truth achieving fame by means of Paul’s presentation of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which the Judaizers called a “lie .” Therefore, we will translate the prepositional phrase eis ten doxan autou ,

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 45

“resulting in His glory (in the sense of being praised by men, receiving recognition from them, and being honored by them) .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:7: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie God’s truth achieved fame resulting in His glory .” Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” We come now to the apodasis of the first class condition, which is introduced “implicitly” meaning without a structural marker. Therefore, we will insert the word “ then ” into our translation to account for this. “Why” is the accusative neuter singular form of the interrogative pronoun tis (tiv$ ) (tis), which asks a debater’s rhetorical question and functions as an accusative direct object meaning it is receiving the action of the verb krino . “I also ” is the personal pronoun kago ( ka)gwv) (kag-o), which is formed through “crasis” from kai ( kaiv) and ego ( egw ). “Crasis” occurs when one word, which ended with a vowel, was immediately followed by a word which began with a vowel. It is the merging of a word into the one following by omission and contraction of vowels. It affects the conjunction kai and the article, and is marked by the retention of the breathing of the second word, which is called the “coronis.” In this case kai which ends in an iota merged with ego which begins with an epsilon. Crasis is rare in the NT and more frequently occurred with the use of kai . The meaning of the terms kai and ego were affected by the crasis. Crasis occurred primarily as a result of contemporary pronunciation practices. The essential meanings of kai , “and, but, even, also,” and ego , “I” remained intact. The word kago does not appear in the LXX but appears 72 times in the NT. It can have the following meanings depending upon the context: (1) and I (2) but I (3) I also, I too, I for my part, I in turn (4) I in particular or I for instance. In Romans 3:7, the force of kago is to particularize and is used to emphasize the sarcasm behind Paul’s statement that God’s truth achieved fame by means of his lie and resulted in God’s glory. We will translate kago , “ I…singled out .” “Still ” is the adverb eti ( e&ti ) (et-ee), which denotes a logical inference and is used in this rhetorical question to demonstrate the obvious contradiction between their harsh treatment of Paul and their argument that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness when their unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness. As we noted, in Romans 3:3-4, Paul teaches that Jewish unfaithfulness does not render inoperative God’s faithfulness to Israel and that God will be vindicated when He judges unsaved mankind. In Romans 3:5, Paul addresses another

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 46 objection of the Judaizers that if Jewish unrighteousness magnifies the righteousness of God, then, God is unrighteous and not justified in exercising His righteous indignation towards them. He addresses this objection since it could be implied from Romans 3:3-4 that the unrighteousness of unregenerate Jews serves to demonstrate the righteousness of God. The idea that God could ever be unrighteous is strictly “human viewpoint” Paul says at the end of Romans 3:5. Now, in Romans 3:7 Paul continues the argument raised by the Judaizers that is noted in the protasis of Romans 3:5, namely, that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness when their unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness. Paul refuted this with the negative particle me , “ No !” in Romans 3:5 and the expression me genoito , “absolutely not !” in Romans 3:6. Paul’s rhetorical question in Romans 3:7 points out the contradiction with this argument and their treatment of him as a sinner who taught lies. Therefore, Paul is saying, “how can you judge me as a sinner when you argue that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness since their unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness!?” We will translate the adverb of logical inference eti , “ still .” Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” “Am being judged ” is the 1 st person singular present passive indicative form of the verb krino (krivnw ) (kree-no), which means, “to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong,” and by implication, “to pass judgment upon someone or something as evil or wrong after weighing the evidence and without reservation,” hence, “to condemn.” In Romans 3:7, the verb refers to the fact that Paul was being “condemned” by the Judaizers for presenting the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not through the works of the Law. The present tense is a “retroactive progressive” present tense used to describe an action that took place in the past and continues up to the present. Therefore, it indicates that Paul was condemned by the Judaizers as a sinner “in the past” and this was still taking place “up to the time that Paul wrote the Roman epistle.” The passive voice indicates that the Paul is receiving the action of being condemned by an unexpressed agency, which through a comparison of Scripture in the book of Acts and Paul’s epistles are called by expositors, the “Judaizers.” The indicative mood is “interrogative” since it is used with the interrogative particle tis , “ why ” to form a rhetorical question. This rhetorical question exposes the contradiction between the Judaizers argument and their labeling Paul a sinner.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 47

We will translate krino , “ have been in the past…to be condemned…and continue up to the present moment .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:7: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie God’s truth achieved fame resulting in His glory . Why then have I in the past been singled out to be condemned and continue to be up to the present moment ?” Romans 3:7, “But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” “As ” is the relative adverb of manner hos ( w($ ), which functions as a comparative adverb introducing a characteristic that Paul’s opponents, the Judaizers attributed to Paul. “A sinner ” is the nominative masculine singular form of the adjective hamartolos ( a(martwlov$ ) (ham-ar-tol-os). The adjective hamartolos appears frequently in classical literature and functions both as an adjective and as a noun. In secular writings of Aristophanes (450-385 B.C.) the substantive appears as a barbarism and carries a disparaging and sarcastic nuance (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown Editor, volume 3, page 577). In the Septuagint, hamartolos appears frequently and usually translates the Hebrew rasha `, “wicked” or “criminal.” The word translates other Hebrew terms, especially those, which describe someone has violated the terms of a covenant with God or someone who has sinned against the Mosaic Law. Later Judaism became very legalistic and ritualistic, which led to dissension regarding who were sinners? The Rabbis determined that a sinner was one who not only sinned against the Law of God but also rejected their traditions, which they put on a par with the inspired Old Testament text! These traditions were rejected by the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in Mark 7. They became unbearable and a great burden to the Jewish people and many thought it impossible to live according to these often neurotic traditions. These traditions became barriers resulting in entire segments of the Jewish population being isolated and shunned and deprived of rights such as the shepherds whose trade was classified by the rabbis as “unclean.” Therefore, we can see by describing Paul with this term hamartolos , the Judaizers were saying that he broke from the oral traditions of the rabbis. This word also designated that he sinned against the Law as well because he taught that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus of Nazareth, who Paul proclaimed was the Messiah, the Christ as demonstrated by His resurrection from the dead (compare Romans 1:4). The adjective hamartolos functions as a predicate nominative meaning it is making an assertion about the subject who is Paul. We will translate the word “ a sinner .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 48

Completed corrected translation of Romans 3:7: “ But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie God’s truth achieved fame resulting in His glory . Why then have I in the past been singled out to be condemned as a sinner and continue to be up to the present moment ?” So we see in Romans 3:7, Paul poses another rhetorical question to his opponents, the Judaizers, picking up their argument they raised that appears in the protasis of Romans 3:5, namely, that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness since their unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness. Paul’s rhetorical question in Romans 3:7 points out the contradiction with this argument and their treatment of him as a sinner who taught lies. Therefore, Paul is saying, “how can you call me a sinner when you argue that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness since their unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness?” So we see in Romans 3:7 Paul exposes the contradiction between the Judaizers argument and their slandering him by calling him a “sinner” because he taught that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The Judaizers called the gospel message a “lie.” Romans 3:7 reveals that Paul was persecuted because he taught salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not through the works of the Law or circumcision. 2 Timothy 3:12, “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 49

Romans: Romans 3:8-Paul Addresses Judaizers’ Charge that His Gospel of Grace was Antinomianism

In Romans 3:8, Paul addresses the Judaizers’ charge that his gospel of grace was “antinomianism,” which comes from the Greek anti , “against” and the noun nomos , “law,” thus the expression literally means, “against the law.” Jude addresses the issue of antinomianism in Jude 4. Jude 4, “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Thus, we can see that Paul was accused by the Judaizers that he was “against the Law” meaning that his message of grace gave one a license to sin when in reality Paul taught that grace is a license to obey and serve God (Romans 7:1-13). Romans 7:12, “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” The Judaizers were accusing Paul of teaching that the more a person sins, the more God is glorified, the more he lies and the more he glorifies God’s truthfulness, which is outrageous. The charge of antinomianism that was leveled against Paul was of course false since Paul taught that God’s grace is so that we might obey and serve God and was not a license to sin as the Judaizers accused him of teaching. Romans 6:10-16, “For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” “And ” is the “adjunctive” use of the conjunction kai ( kaiV), which not only extends the apodasis of Romans 3:7 but also introduces an additional rhetorical question that demands a negative response that is an additional reply to the objection presented in the protasis of Romans 3:7. Romans 3:7a, “But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie God’s truth achieved fame resulting in His glory.”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 50

Therefore, we will translate kai with the English “ furthermore .” “Not ” is the negative particle me ( mhv), which indicates that this additional rhetorical question that is in response to the objection in the protasis of Romans 3:7 demands a negative answer and should therefore be translated at the end of the rhetorical question. Therefore, the New American Standard translators incorrectly have the negative particle me negated the meaning of the verb lego , “ say ,” which they add believing it is omitted due to the figure of ellipsis. Therefore, in the translation, the negative particle me , “ No !” should be placed at the end of the rhetorical question rather than negating the meaning of lego , “ say .” The negative particle me negates any idea of glorifying God by committing sin as well denying any thought of this taking place. Next, the apostle Paul employs the figure of ellipsis of repetition where the expression ti eroumen , “ what shall we say ” is to be supplied by repeating it from Romans 3:5. In Romans 3:5, the New American Standard translated this expression “ what shall we say ?” but we translated it “ what then is the conclusion that we are forced to ?” since it is a Greek idiom in debater’s technique. In Romans 3:5, the verb ereo is used with the interrogative pronoun tis , “ what ” to express Paul’s hesitation and revulsion in presenting a rhetorical question that anticipates the objection of the Judaizers, which infers the unthinkable and the preposterous, namely, that God is unrighteous. Romans 3:5, “But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness does cause God’s righteousness to be made conspicuous. What then is the conclusion that we are forced to ? Is God unrighteous, while inevitably exercising His righteous indignation? (I am speaking according to human viewpoint.) No!” In Romans 3:8, Paul omits this expression ti eroumen due to the figure of ellipsis of repetition, and is thus is implied. Just as this expression in Romans 3:5 expressed Paul’s revulsion and hesitation in presenting a rhetorical question, which infers the unthinkable and the preposterous, namely that God is unrighteous so in Romans 3:8, the expression does the same. In Romans 3:8, the phrase ti eroumen expresses Paul’s revulsion and hesitation in presenting a rhetorical question, which infers the unthinkable and preposterous, namely, “ Let us do evil so that good may come !” Therefore, the accusative neuter singular form of the interrogative pronoun tis (tiv$ ) (tis) is omitted due to the figure of ellipsis but is implied and should be inserted into the translation in order to make a smoother English translation. The word asks a debater’s rhetorical question and functions as an accusative direct object meaning it is receiving the action of the verb ereo .

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 51

Also, the 1st person plural future active indicative form of the verb ereo ( e)revw ) (er-eh-o) is also omitted due to the figure of ellipsis but is implied and should also be inserted into the translation in order to make a smoother English translation. The word denotes a strong affirmation by the writer and expresses a solemn declaration. So the verb ereo is used with the interrogative pronoun tis , “ what ” to express Paul’s hesitation and revulsion in presenting a rhetorical question, which infers the unthinkable and the preposterous, namely, “ Let us do evil so that good may come !” The expression ti eroumen can be translated as “ what shall we say ?” However it is a Greek idiom in debater’s technique and it should be translated, “ what is the conclusion that we are forced to ?” Remember, the statement kathos blasphemoumetha kai kathos kathos phasin tines hemas legein hoti , “ as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say ” is a parenthesis. Therefore, if we remove the parenthesis Paul’s statement looks like this: “What is the conclusion that we are forced to? ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” So we can see clearly that there is an ellipsis of repetition where the expression ti eroumen , “ What is the conclusion that we are forced to? ” should be supplied from the preceding context in Romans 3:5. The future tense of the verb is a “deliberative future” meaning that it asks a question that implies some doubt about the response. However, Paul is asking a rhetorical question in place of a direct assertion that demands a negative response. In the active voice, Paul assumes the position of his opponents, the Judaizers in order to convey to his readers that which they have slanderously reported him teaching. This is an ‘interrogative” indicative where an “assertion is expected” from Paul’s unsaved Jewish audience. It indicates that Paul is presenting a rhetorical question that demands a negative response, which he expresses with the negative particle me and the statement, “ Their condemnation is just .” We will translate the expression ti eroumen , “ what is the conclusion that we are forced to ?” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to ?” Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” “As ” is the comparative conjunction kathos ( kaqwv$ ) (kath-oce), which introduces a parenthesis and is used with the indicative mood of the verb blasphemeo , “ we are slanderously reported. ”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 52

The word is comparing the Judaizers’ charges that Paul taught antinomianism with slander and equates the two. It conveys the idea that it was slander on the part of the Judaizers for considering Paul’s message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as antinomianism. “We are slanderously reported ” is the 1 st person plural present passive indicative form of the verb blasphemeo ( blasfhmevw ) (blas-fay-meh-o), which is composed of the verb blapto , “to injure” and noun pheme , “speech,” thus the word literally means, “to injure with speech.” Thus, the word denotes “slandering” someone, which refers to defaming someone’s character as a result of bitterness towards them. In classical Greek, the verb blasphemeo means, “to speak profanely of sacred things.” It also was used of “slandering” a person and was used of simply “speaking evil” of someone or something. The word was one of the strongest words in Greek to denote derision, abusive speech or ridicule (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 1, page 621). In the LXX, the word appears approximately ten times in which it was rendered by three different Hebrew terms: (1) Gadhaph (2) Yakhach (3) Na’ats . The verb blasphemeo was always used in the LXX with God’s person, character and reputation as the objects of blasphemy by His enemies (2 Kings [LXX 4 Kings] 19:4, 6, 22; Isaiah 52:5). In the Greek New Testament, blasphemeo appears 35 times and like the LXX, the word is used with God as the object of blasphemy by men. Louw and Nida define the verb blasphemeo , “To speak against someone in such a way as to harm or injure his or her reputation” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, volume 1, page 434). The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the word, “To speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, to utter blasphemy” (page 102). The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised defines blasphemeo , “To calumniate, revile, treat with calumny and contumely; to speak of God or divine things in terms of impious irreverence, to blaspheme” (pages 70-71). Bauer lists the following meanings: (1) In relation to men, injure the reputation of, revile, defame (2) In relation to a divine being, blaspheme , of heathen gods, of the true God and what pertains to Him, angels (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pages 142-143). In Romans 3:8, the verb blasphemeo means, “to slander,” which refers to defaming someone’s character as a result of bitterness towards them. The verb is in the 1 st person plural form and is identified by grammarians as an “exclusive we” referring to Paul, the other apostles as well as other communicators of the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ such as Titus and Timothy and also includes

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 53

Christians in general. Therefore, the verb blasphemeo refers to Paul’s opponents, the Judaizers slandering in the sense of speaking against not only his character and reputation in such as way as to injure it, but also the other apostles, other communicators such as pastor-teachers and evangelists as well as other Christians functioning under their royal ambassadorship. Therefore, the Judaizers defamed the character of Paul and the apostles and other communicators of the gospel of Jesus Christ as a result of bitterness towards them. The Judaizers were jealous of all the converts to Christianity. In Rome, they expressed their jealousy by proclaiming Christ while Paul was under house arrest in the Praetorian Camp in Rome during his first Roman imprisonment in 60-62 A.D. in order to turn the Roman government against Paul according to Philippians 1:12-17. Philippians 1:12-17, “Now, at this particular time I want all of you to thoroughly understand royal family that my circumstances have resulted to an even greater extent in the propagation of the proclamation of the gospel so that as a result my imprisonment because of the proclamation of the gospel of Christ has become well known throughout the entire Praetorian Guard and to all the others. Even, the majority of the members from the royal family are confident in the Lord because of my imprisonment with the result that they are at this particular time increasingly daring, fearlessly communicating the Word originating from God. In fact, on the one hand, some even are at the present time proclaiming the Christ because of envy and inordinate competition but some also on the other hand because of good intentions. In fact on the one hand, the latter are at the present time proclaiming the Christ motivated by divine-love while at the same time discerning that I had been appointed for the defense of the gospel. But on the other hand, the former are at the present time proclaiming the Christ everywhere, motivated by inordinate selfish ambition, with absolutely no sincerity at all, while at the same time assuming they can stir up trouble at this particular point during my imprisonment.” In Romans 3:8, the present tense of the verb blasphemeo is a “retroactive” progressive present tense indicating that Paul and his fellow communicators and Christians in general have been slanderously accused of teaching antinomianism in the past and this continued up to the time that Paul wrote the Roman epistle. The passive voice means that Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ receive the action of being slandered by an unexpressed agency, which as we have noted were the Judaizers. The indicative mood is employed with the conjunction kathos , “ as ” in order to form a comparative clause that compares the argument in the protasis of Romans

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 54

3:7 that God’s truth was glorified by means of Paul’s lie with their charges that he taught antinomianism. We will translate the verb blasphemeo , “ we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to ? ( As we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment...)” Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” “And ” is the “connective” use of the conjunction kai ( kaiV), which is used to connect the historical fact that Paul, the apostles and other communicators of the gospel of Jesus Christ were being slandered by the Judaizers because of the content of the gospel and the Judaizers’ allegations that they taught antinomianism. “As ” is the comparative conjunction kathos ( kaqwv$ ) (kath-oce), which is used with the indicative mood of the verb phemi , “ claim ” in order form a comparative clause that draws the comparison between Paul and the apostles being slandered with the allegations that they taught antinomianism. Thus, indicating that the content of the slander was antinomianism. “Some ” is the nominative masculine plural form of the indefinite pronoun tis (ti$ ) (tis), which refers to the Judaizers and functions as the nominative subject performing the action of the verb phemi , “ claim .” “Claim ” is the 3 rd person plural present active indicative form of the verb phemi (fhmiv) (fay-mee), which means, “to allege.” The present tense of the verb phemi is a “retroactive progressive” present indicating that the Judaizers’ in the past have alleged that Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel of grace have taught antinomianism and continue to do so up to the time Paul wrote Romans. The active voice refers to the Judaizers producing the action of the verb of alleging that Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel taught antinomianism. The indicative mood is employed with the conjunction hoti in order to form a recitative hoti clause in direct discourse and is a specialized form of a direct object clause after verb of perception, which involves direct speech. We will translate the verb phemi , “ have in the past alleged…and continue to do so up to the present moment... ” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to ? ( As we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment and as some have in the past alleged…and continue to do so up to the present moment...)”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 55

Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” “That ” is the conjunction hoti ( o^ti ) (hot-ee), which is employed with the indicative mood of the verb phemi in order to form a recitative hoti clause in direct discourse that is a specialized form of a direct object clause after verb of perception, which involves direct speech. In direct discourse, the conjunction hoti should not be translated but rather in its place there should be quotation marks. “We” is the accusative 1 st person plural form of the personal pronoun hemeis (h(mei~$ ), which refers to the apostle Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The accusative form of the personal pronoun hemeis functions semantically as the subject of the infinitive lego . “Say ” is the present active infinitive form of the verb lego ( levgw ), which means, “to speak” with emphasis upon the statement to follow that the Judaizers’ alleged that the apostle Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel of Jesus Christ taught that sin glorifies God. This word completes the parenthesis. The present tense of the verb lego is an “instantaneous” or “aoristic” present used to indicate that an action is completed at the moment of speaking. The active voice refers to the Judaizers’ producing the action of the verb of accusing Paul and his fellow communicators of the Word of God of teaching that sin glorifies God. The infinitive functions as the direct object of the verb phemi . The infinitive form of the verb lego along with the personal pronoun hemeis , form a recitative hoti clause in direct discourse, which is a specialized form of a direct object clause after verb of perception that contains reported speech. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to ? ( As we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment and as some have in the past alleged we say and continue to do so up to the present moment.)” Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” Now, we come to the content of the Judaizers’ allegation that was directed at the apostle Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel of Jesus Christ. “Let us do ” is the 1 st person plural aorist active subjunctive form of the verb poieo ( poievw ), which is used with adjective kakos , “ evil ” and means, “to perpetrate” since this word has a negative connotation attached to it.

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 56

“Perpetrate” means, “to perform, execute or commit (a crime, wrong, etc): to perpetrate murder. Therefore, Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel were accused by the Judaizers of teaching others to “perpetrate” evil. The aorist tense is a “constative” aorist describing in summary fashion that Paul taught and his fellow communicators of the gospel of teaching others to perpetrate evil. It summarizes the teaching of the gospel from the Judaizers’ perspective. The active voice indicates from the Judaizers’ perspective that Paul and his fellow communicators of the Word of God produce the action of the verb of teaching others to perpetrate evil. The subjunctive mood is a “hortatory” subjunctive, which is used to urge others to unite with the speaker in a course of action upon which he has already decided. Therefore, the “hortatory” subjunctive indicates that Paul and his fellow communicators of the Word of God were accused by the Judaizers’ of “urging others to unite with them” in perpetrating evil. We will translate the verb poieo , “ Let us perpetrate .” “Evil ” is the articular accusative neuter singular form of the adjective kakos (kakov$ ) (kak-os), which describes actions that are done against the laws of God that reveal His will and thus refers to various acts of sin that constitute evil. Therefore, the apostle Paul and his fellow communicators of the gospel of Jesus Christ were accused by the Judaizers of teaching others to perpetrate “evil acts.” The definite preceding the abstract noun kakos emphasizing the evil character of the actions of the unbeliever. The noun kakos functions as an accusative direct object meaning it is receiving the action of the verb poieo . We will translate kakos , “ evil acts .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to ? ( As we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment and as some have in the past alleged we say and continue to do so up to the present moment), ‘Let us perpetrate evil acts...)” Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” “That ” is the conjunction hina ( i%na ), which is employed with the subjunctive mood of the verb erchomai in order to form a purpose clause. Therefore, hina with the subjunctive mood of erchomai expresses from the perspective of the Judaizers the purpose for which Paul and his fellow communicators taught others to perpetrate evil. We will translate hina , “ in order that .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 57

“Good ” is the articular nominative neuter plural form of the adjective agathos (a)gaqov$ ) (ag-ath-os), which is used in direct contrast to the articular form of the adjective kakos , “ evil acts. ” The adjective agathos is in the plural and refers to “blessings” that result from perpetrating evil acts since the verb erchomai emphasizes the results from performing an action. Therefore, the Judaizers accused Paul and his fellow communicators of the Word of God of teaching others to perpetrate evil in order that “blessings” might result. The definite article preceding the adjective agathos converts the word into a substantive. It also indicates that agathos functions as a nominative subject producing the action of the verb erchomai in this hina purpose clause. We will translate the articular form of the adjective agathos , “ blessings .” “May come ” is the 3 rd person singular aorist active subjunctive form of the verb erchomai ( e*rxomai ) (er-khom-i), which means, “to come about, to result in, to become a reality.” The aorist tense of the verb is a “culminative” aorist viewing an event in its entirety but regarding it from the viewpoint of its existing results. Therefore, the “culminative” aorist views the purpose of perpetrating evil in its entirety but regards it from the standpoint of its existing results, namely, that blessings might result. The active voice indicates that the subject exists in the state indicating by the verb. Therefore, since agathos is the subject in this hina purpose clause, the active voice indicates that the blessings exist as the resultant state of perpetrating evil. The subjunctive mood of the verb erchomai is employed with the conjunction hina in order to form a purpose clause. Therefore, hina with the subjunctive mood of erchomai expresses from the perspective of the Judaizers the purpose for which Paul and his fellow communicators taught others to perpetrate evil was that blessings might result. We will translate the verb erchomai , “ might result .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to ? ( As we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment and as some have in the past alleged we say and continue to do so up to the present moment), ‘Let us perpetrate evil acts in order that blessings might result.’” Now, as a reminder of what he noted earlier in the exegesis of Romans 3:8, the negative particle me ( mhv), which appears at the beginning of the passage indicates that this additional rhetorical question that is in response to the objection in the protasis of Romans 3:7 demands a negative answer. Also, as we noted earlier, the New American Standard translators incorrectly have the negative particle me negated the meaning of the verb lego , “ say ,” which

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 58 they add believing it is omitted due to the figure of ellipsis. Therefore, in the translation, the negative particle me , “ No !” should be placed at the end of the rhetorical question rather than negating the meaning of lego , “ say .” The negative particle me negates any idea of glorifying God by committing sin as well denying any thought of this taking place or blessing resulting from sin. The negative particle me refutes the allegation of antinomianism that was leveled at the apostle Paul and the other apostles as well as other communicators of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the first century, which would include men with the spiritual gifts of prophet, pastor-teacher and evangelist. By refuting this allegation, Paul also expresses his rejection of the entire concept of antinomianism. Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to ? ( As we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment and as some have in the past alleged we say and continue to do so up to the present moment), ‘Let us perpetrate evil acts in order that blessings might result.’ No! ” Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” “Their ” is the genitive masculine plural form of the relative pronoun hos ( o^$ ) (hos), which agrees in gender and number with its antecedent, which is the masculine plural form of the indefinite pronoun tis , “ some ” that refers to the Judaizers, thus the relative pronoun hos refers to the Judaizers. The word functions as a “possessive” genitive meaning that this condemnation “belongs to” the Judaizers because they distorted the teaching of the Word of God. The means, “whose” but we can translate it with a possessive pronoun, “their.” “Condemnation ” is the articular nominative neuter singular form of the noun krima ( krivma ) (kree-mah), which is from the verb krino , “to judge” and the suffix –ma , “the result of.” Therefore, the word denotes the result of judging and thus refers to a “guilty verdict.” The guilty verdict would be divine discipline for those Judaizers who were believers but were still attempting to live under the Mosaic and accused Paul of antinomianism whereas the guilty verdict would be eternal condemnation for those Judaizers who were unbelievers. The definite article preceding the noun krima indicates that the word functions as the nominative subject performing the action of the verb eimi and indicates that the adjective endikos , “ just ” functions as the predicate nominative since the article identifies the subject. We will translate krima , “ condemnation .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 59

“Is ” the 3rd person singular present active indicative form of the verb eimi (ei)miv) (i-mee), which denotes that this condemnation possesses the characteristic of being just. The word functions as a copula uniting the subject krima with the predicate nominative endikos . The present tense is a “gnomic” present used of a spiritual axiom or eternal spiritual truth indicating that the condemnation of the Judaizers is “as an eternal spiritual truth” just. The active voice is a “stative” active indicating that subject exists in the state indicated by the verb eimi , which denotes “possessing a certain characteristic.” Therefore, the “stative” active voice indicates that the Judaizers’ condemnation “exists in the state of being” just. The indicative mood is “declarative” presenting this Pauline assertion as an unqualified statement of Bible doctrine. We will translate eimi , “ is, as an eternal spiritual truth .” “Just ” is the nominative neuter singular form of the adjective endikos (e&ndiko$ ) (en-dee-kos), which means, “just, right, justified, deserved.” In classical Greek, the adjective endikos describes things, which are “legitimate, deserving,” or “right” and describes people who are “righteous and upright.” The word does not appear in the Septuagint and only twice in the Greek New Testament (Romans 3:8, Hebrews 2:2). In Romans 3:8, the adjective endikos describes the Judaizers’ condemnation for accusing Paul and his fellow communicators of the Word of God of antinomianism as “deserving” since it is an attack on the Word of God, which Paul and his fellow communicators were teaching. It was an attack on the integrity of God since the Word of God expresses the integrity of God. The Judaizers’ condemnation is deserved since the Judaizers argued in Romans 3:3 that Jewish unbelief renders inoperative God’s faithfulness. Paul rejects this argument with the negative particle me , “ No !” in Romans 3:3 and the expression me genoito , “ Absolutely not !” in Romans 3:4. He also refutes it in Romans 3:4 by using Old Testament Scriptures to support His teaching that God will be vindicated and acknowledged as righteous when He is accused of injustice at the Great White Throne Judgment. Romans 3:3, “So then, what if-and let us assume for the sake of argument some did not believe, then will their unbelief render inoperative God’s faithfulness? No!” Romans 3:4, “Absolutely not! God must be acknowledged as true but each and every member of the human race a liar. Just as it stands written, for all of eternity, ‘that You will be acknowledged as righteous by means of Your

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 60 pronouncements so that You will be victorious while You are undoubtedly being accused of injustice.’” The Judaizers’ condemnation is also deserved since they argued that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness since Jewish unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness. Paul rejects this argument again with the negative particle me , “ No !” in Romans 3:5 and with the expression me genoito , “ Absolutely not !” in Romans 3:6. He also refutes the argument in Romans 3:6 by asking the question as to how will God condemn the unsaved if He is unrighteous. Romans 3:5, “But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument our unrighteousness does cause God’s righteousness to be made conspicuous. What then is the conclusion that we are forced to? Is God unrighteous, while inevitably exercising His righteous indignation? (I am speaking according to human viewpoint.) No!” Romans 3:6, “Absolutely not! For how will God condemn the unsaved inhabitants of the cosmic system?” The Judaizers’ condemnation will also be deserved since they labeled Paul a sinner because he taught salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ while at the same time arguing that God is unrighteous for exercising His righteous indignation upon Jewish unrighteousness since Jewish unrighteousness serves to make more conspicuous God’s righteousness. Romans 3:7, “But, if-and let us assume for the sake of argument by means of my lie God’s truth achieved fame resulting in His glory. Why then have I in the past been singled out to be condemned as a sinner and continue to be up to the present moment?” The basis for the first argument in Romans 3:3 was to call into question that faithfulness of God. The basis for the second argument in Romans 3:5 was to call into question God’s righteousness. The basis for their allegation against Paul and the apostles and other communicators of the Word of God that they taught evil acts will result in blessing from God also called into question God’s integrity since it implied that God blesses sin. Therefore, their condemnation was deserved since the basis for their attack on Paul was to call into question God’s character and integrity. All of these arguments were the result of twisting the message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. They twisted and distorted the gospel message that Paul and the apostles communicated since it exposed their sin and hypocrisy and self-righteousness and thus their need for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (John 3).

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 61

The Judaizers also rejected the grace message since it rejects human arrogance, which expresses itself by attempting to perform some sort of system of works in order to be justified before a holy God (Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:5- 7). They also rejected it because they were involved in evil, which is independence from God (Isaiah 14:12-14). The Gospel message demonstrates that all of humanity is totally and completely dependent upon God and His grace for not only human existence itself but also for salvation. They could do nothing to earn or deserve salvation and were totally and completely dependent upon God to provide salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. They also hated the gospel message because the gospel taught that all of humanity, both Jew and Gentile have absolutely no merit with God and that only Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ has merit with God since He is the only sinless human being in history. Therefore, the gospel rejects human arrogance and pride. So in a sense these attacks on Paul were an attack on the Lord Jesus Christ since His message came directly from the Lord Himself. Galatians 1:11-12, “For I would have you know, brethren that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Also, as we have noted in the past, Romans 1:18-3:20 constitutes the second major section of the book of Romans and deals with the universal need of the righteousness of God. This passage is divided into three major sections: (1) The unrighteousness of the Gentiles (1:18-32). (2) The unrighteousness of the Jews (2:1-3:8). (3) The universal unrighteousness of men (3:9-20). So Romans chapter three continues this second section, which deals with the unrighteousness of the Jews. In Romans 2:1-3:8, the apostle Paul addresses the sin of the Jews in three stages: (1) Without naming his opponent, he establishes the principles of divine judgment by which the Jew is clearly condemned, just as the pagan Gentiles (Romans 2:1-16). (2) Paul explains how the Law condemns (2:17-29). (3) He adds a parenthetical response to possible misconceptions of what he has said (3:1-8). Therefore, since Romans 3:8 completes Paul’s presentation of Jewish unrighteousness, the statement “ Their condemnation is deserved ” sums up this presentation. The adjective endikos functions as a “predicate nominative” meaning it is making an assertion concerning the Judaizers’ condemnation. We will translate endikos , “ deserved .” Corrected translation thus far of Romans 3:8: “ Furthermore, what is the conclusion that we are forced to? (As we have been slanderously charged with in the past and continue to be up to the present moment and as some have in

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 62 the past alleged we say and continue to do so up to the present moment), ‘Let us perpetrate evil acts in order that blessings might result.’ No! Their condemnation is, as an eternal spiritual truth, deserved .”

2007 William E. Wenstrom, Jr. Bible Ministries 63