Lectionary Bible Studies and Sermons


Romans

God's faithfulness. 3:1-20

[Seed logo] Introduction
      In our passage for study, Paul continues to contend with Jewish believers and their Gentile disciples ("the weak", 15:1) who see their righteousness maintained and progressed by obedience to the law of Moses. Paul's thesis is that right-standing before God is by grace through faith, irrespective of a person's standing under the law. This has prompted two major objections against Paul's teachings, namely that he devalues God's covenant with its divine law and that he promotes libertarianism, that free grace allows, even promotes, free sin. Paul now raises these two objections and gives a summary answer. He will deal with both these issues latter in his letter. He then returns to his core argument: all humanity is without excuse before God, for all have sinned and therefore all face the condemnation of God, and this includes those who submit to the law of Moses, for the law was never intended as an instrument for right-standing before God, rather, it was designed to expose sin and thus our need for a savior.

The passage
      v1-4. The first objection: Since Paul makes the argument himself, we are not sure of the exact wording of the objections, but they would go something like this: "In your teaching, Paul, you suggest that God's righteous judgment, of blessing or cursing, is irrespective of submission to the law. In arguing this way you devalue Jewish heritage, undermine the value of circumcision." Paul agrees with the Jewish believers that there is value in their Jewish heritage. They have received the Old Testament covenant, but it comes with responsibilities. The covenant promises both blessings and cursings, and they need to understand that God is true to his word, he is a faithful God. If a person places themselves under the law of Moses, but then fails to keep the law, they, like everyone else in the world, will face divine condemnation.
      v5-8. The second objection: "Your teaching, Paul, implies that our failure to obey the law promotes God's faithfulness, promotes his mercy and forgiveness, which of course means it would be unjust of God to judge our failure. In fact, the implication of your teaching is, let's sin that grace may abound." In verse 8 Paul actually quotes the words used by his detractors and describes their argument as very "human" - shifty to say the least. Free grace (although it wasn't free for Jesus) doesn't mean free to sin. By proclaiming a righteousness that comes as a free gift of God through faith in Christ apart from submission to the Mosaic law, the law-bound believers in the church at the time ("the weak", 15:1) felt that Paul was undermining the law's role in sanctification. They argued that the logic of Paul's position served only to promote licence, for young believers would end up thinking that sin is good because it shows up the grace of God. As Paul puts it, "those who promote such a stupid argument are deservedly condemned."
      v9. So, do Jewish believers and their Gentile converts, have an advantage over Gentile believers who do not submit to the law of Moses? The answer is "not in every respect", but when it comes to sin, they stand equally condemned before God. This is all that matters in end.
      v10-18. Paul now quotes the Old Testament to support his contention that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, including those who submit to the law of Moses.
      v19. Jewish believers may feel that their submission to the law blesses them (maintains their standing before God, progresses their holiness), since they are somehow exempt from the condemnation of the law. Yet, as the "law" make clear to those "under the law", God's judgement begins with his household. There is no exception for sin.
      v20. In reality, no person can claim righteousness in the sight of God, or progress that righteousness, by submitting to the law's requirements. The only thing the law does is to expose our sinfulness and thus, our state of loss.

No advantage
      A letter appeared recently in a local newspaper attacking those who supported the views of a right-wing politician. The letter came from a "Christian" who expressed disgust at the "racist" views expressed by many who had written to the paper over the preceding weeks. As far as she was concerned, God would "judge" all of them.
      She was right to be offended, but the trouble is, God will judge every person, and every one of us will be found wanting. Yes, even churchies who are sure that their commitment to Biblical ethics gives them a superior standing in the sight of God, compared to the unwashed hoards of those who are less committed than they, those who are not regular at church, don't attend Bible study or prayer meetings, who don't tithe, or even worse, are divorced. The trouble is, Biblical ethics can only do one thing for us, and that to remind us that we are sinners and in need of a saviour.
      Lord, have mercy on us.

Discussion
      Switch Paul's argument from the pious godly Jewish believer to the pious godly believer in the church today. Remember, all of us are, to some degree, that person. Discuss the results.


Notes

Textual notes   Abbreviations,   Bibliography
 
      Paul's letter to the Romans is an exposition of the gospel set against law-bound believers (mainly Jewish believers - judaizers, the circumcision party) who regard submission to the law (primarily the law of Moses) as the means of maintaining and/or advancing their standing before God. For Paul, this heresy (nomism / pietism) not only undermines the substance of the gospel, but actually undermines a believer's standing before God, a standing which rests wholly on the covenant faithfulness of God appropriated through faith in the person and work of Christ.
      Paul, having stated his thesis in 1:16-17, that right-standing in the sight of God (covenant compliance) is appropriated through faith, proceeds in 1:18-2:11 to establish the universality of sin, reminding self-righteous Jewish (law-bound) believers ("judaizers", members of "the circumcision party", "the weak") that they too are infected by the stain of sin, 2:1-5, the consequence of which is divine condemnation, 2:6-11. Yet, although sin is universal, God's judgment is not. Under the righteous judgment of God the righteous by faith ("everyone who does good", cf. 1:18) will receive "glory and honor and immortality"; for the rest, "wrath and fury." Then, in 2:12-29, Paul examines the place of the law in the righteous judgment of God, making the point that those Jewish believers who have retained their standing under the law, actually break the law and thus face the curse of the law and the "wrath and fury" of God's condemnation, while Gentile believers, who through faith have received "glory and honor and immortality" without the law, actually apply the law in their day-to-day life, having never received the law as a birthright. As far as the righteous judge is concerned, the true child of God is not the son with the pure credentials, but the son with a circumcised heart. In 3:1-8 Paul answers two objections to his rather negative view of the standing of Jewish believers under the law, namely, that he devalues the covenant/law and that he promotes libertarianism. Then, in 3:9-20, Paul drives home the conclusion of this section of his letter which began in 1:18. Paul's argument is simple and to the point: the human condition of universal sin and its consequence is not avoided by submission to the law, for the law only serves to make sin more sinful.
      In writing to the believers in Rome, Paul addresses the problem of nomist members (believers who strive to obey the law of God for the maintenance and/or progress of their righteousness before God). Most of these brothers, whom Paul addresses as "the weak" in Romans, 15:1, would be mainly believing Jews, along with Gentiles who have succumbed to this "pharisaic" heresy. Paul seeks to separate them from religious Judaism (they probably saw themselves as members of the Jewish Nazarene sect - followers of Jesus the messiah) and its nomism, arguing that by seeking righteousness under the law of Moses, not only do they promote sinful living, but they place themselves again under the curse of the law and thus stand condemned before God. On the other hand, their brothers, who seek righteousness before God as a gift of grace through faith, not only begin to live a righteous life, but stand eternally righteous before God.
      We know that Paul had to battle long and hard against the nomists (cf. Acts 15:1-35) and in so doing had to answer a number of sticky questions which challenged his thesis that the righteousness of God (God's covenant fidelity experienced in the bestowal of his promises) is accessed by grace through faith, and not works of the Mosaic law. In 3:1-8 Paul leaves aside his argument concerning the state of sin for those who continue under the law and touches on two of these objections. Paul's argument that a person's standing before God is neither maintained nor advanced by submission to the Mosaic law promotes the objection that:
        i] Paul devalues the covenant/law, teaching that Jewish heritage is of no value in the Christian church, 3:1-4. This idea which would greatly affront the sensibilities of Jewish believers. The logic of Paul's position is that there is no advantage, but as a sop to Jewish sensibilities he notes Israel's possession of the covenant, although having broken the covenant, Israel has forfeited its promises. This may imply that human sin has thwarted God's sovereign intensions, but those intentions are fulfilled in Christ, the true remnant of Israel, and those who are in Christ. Paul will develop this argument in chapters 9-11.
        ii] Paul devalues sin to an extent that one could argue "why not sin that grace may abound?" 3:5-8. It could be argued that Paul's "gospel" is libertarian (even antinomian), that it even promotes the notion that sin, rather than submission to the law, contributes to God's glory. Paul will deal with this false premise in chapters 6-8.
      Most commentators admit the complexity of verses 1-8, made more complex by the many presuppositions which control the interpretation of this passage. Dodd even suggests that Paul's argument is "obscure and feeble", but we are best to concur with Godet who said that the passage is "one of the most difficult, perhaps, in the epistle." Consider how the following three presuppositions further the complexity of the passage:
        i] The function of the law. New perspective commentators argue that Paul's devaluing of the law rests on the notion that, although the Mosaic law, under the old covenant, served as an effective expression of faith, under the new covenant the law ("Jewish exclusivisim") is no longer a valid instrument for maintaining covenant status, having been replaced by a law within, through the indwelling Spirit. On the other hand, conservative commentators tend to argue that the Mosaic law has retained its function as an expression of faith, and that Paul's argument against the law concerned its use as an instrument to earn salvation, ie., Paul was attacking legalism, not nomism. These notes proceed on the basis that the law has never served either to earn or maintain covenant status, rather, covenant status is both gained and maintained by means of the sovereign grace of God appropriated through faith, the law but serves to expose this fact (to expose sin and drive the sinner to God for mercy), and only in a secondary sense does it serve as a guide to the life of faith. In his letter to the Romans, Paul confronts Jewish believers who have brought their nomism (the maintenance and/or advancement of a righteous standing before God by obedience to the law of Moses) with them into the church and now seek to instruct converted Gentiles into their way of thinking. Paul seeks to show that when a person submits to the law in order to maintain and/or advance their right-standing before God they make themselves a sinner under the curse of the law and subject to the universal judgment of God upon human sin.
        ii] "The weak", 15:1. It is commonly held that in these early chapters Paul addresses unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. These notes proceed on the basis that Paul addresses "Christian Gentiles" and "Christian Jews", believing nomist Jews ("the weak", members of "the circumcision party", "judaizers").
        iii] Right-standing before God. Whereas reformed commentators would argue that in Romans Paul is concerned with the business of getting right with God (conversion), new perspective commentators would argue that it is about how Gentiles can properly be included with Jews in the people of God. These notes proceed on the basis that Paul is writing to believers about the issue of staying right with God, the maintenance of a person's standing before God and/or progress of a person's standing before God (sanctification). Paul's argument is that such is not by works of the law, for the law serves to promote sin and enact "the curse", rather, right-standing before God, whether gained, maintained or progressed, is by grace through faith, and such has always been the case (eg. Abraham, ch.4).
      It does seem likely that behind the package of questions in v1-8 there lies two objections against Paul's "gospel" ("my gospel" = Paul's particular understanding of the divine message concerning the coming of the kingdom of God in and through Jesus Christ). Some commentators argue that Paul quotes the objections, others that the questions are Paul's and serve only to further his argument. Many commentators argue for thee questions. Hunter summarizes the "three questions theory" nicely: a] "If every difference between Jew and Gentile vanishes, are we to conclude that membership of the Chosen People carries no advantage with it?" b] "It is obvious that some Jews by their unbelief are forfeiting the promises. Will their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness?" c] "If our wickedness (says the Jewish heckler) serves to show the righteousness of God, is it not unfair of God to inflict his wrath upon us?" These notes proceed against this traditional interpretation. See above.

v1
      The first objection, v1-4: "If God's righteous judgment, of blessing or cursing, is irrespective of covenant fidelity (submission to the law, circumcision), is there any value in being a Jew, any value in circumcision? Yes, of course there is (kind of!!!)."
      ti oun "what then" - Introducing a logical question prompted by the argument so far.
      to perisson adj. "advantage" - the pre-eminence, over and above. Thus, NIV, "advantage". The question implies that, given Paul's argument, there is none. "What then does the Jew possess which others have not?", Barrett.
      hJ wfeleia (a) "value" - gain, advantage, profit, value. "What is the use of circumcision?", Barclay.

v2
      polu kata tanta "much in every way" - much according to all / of every kind. A Jewish heritage gives a believer many advantages, although Paul only names one general advantage here, but then goes on to qualify it, cf. 9:4-5.
      prwton "first" - Possibly first in a list, but probably first in superiority, so Moo, "chiefly", AV.
      episteuqhsan (epipisteuw) aor. pas. + acc. "they have been entrusted with" - they were entrusted with [something]. The divine election of Israel "bestowed special privileges upon them", although such privilege was a "terrible one", Barrett.
      ta logia "the very words of God" - the oracles of God. Possibly "the scriptures", although an unusual term for them. Specifically "the covenant and its promises", Dumbrell, "his word of promise", Morris, but not the "Jewish communication as God's messengers to the world based on Torah", Wright. See Morris for other possibilities.

v3
      gar "-" - for. Is cause/reason being expressed? In questions, often not. Possibly "what then if some ...."
      tineV "some" - Not all Jews are unfaithful. Christ was faithful and those who are "in Christ", by grace through faith, are faithful, but better, there were Jews, like Abraham, who lived by faith, as opposed to the "some" who were "unfaithful", living by obedience to the law. "Some of them were undoubtedly faithless", Phillips. For the new perspective commentator the "some" are important. The remnant of Israel was indeed faithful to the covenant, living by faith, fulfilling the law through obedience and sacrifice where there was sin. The "some" who were unfaithful destroyed the possibility of Israel as a whole from fulfilling its covenant responsibilities, of being a light to the Gentiles, and thus providing salvation to the world. Yet, the faithlessness of the "some" did not thwart God's covenant promises now fulfilled in Christ, the remnant of God, and through Christ, "the equality of salvation" for both Jew and Gentile.
      hpisthsan (apisteuw) aor. "did not have faith" - disbelieving / unfaithful. Translations and commentators are divided on whether lack of faith is intended, as NIV, "unbelieving", Barrett, which is the more common sense of the word in the NT, or unfaithfulness, in the sense of "untrue to their trust", Lightfoot, or more pointedly, "infidelity to the law", Dumbrell; "what if some were unfaithful?", NRSV. "Unbelieving" seems best.
      katarghsei (katargew) fut. "will ..... nullify" - will nullify, make of no effect, render invalid. A word with multiple meanings in the NT. As derived, the word takes the sense "to make to do absolutely no work", so "make inoperative", Morris. "Make completely inoperative / put out of use", Delling.
      hJ apistia (a) "lack of faith" - unbelief / unfaithfulness. See above, so as NIV.

v4
      mh genoito aor. opt. "not at all" - may it not be. Expressing a negative wish. "God forbid!", Barclay. Paul expresses an emphatic denial of the implication in the question in v3 that God would not follow through on his promises, ie., be unfaithful.
      ginesqw (ginomai) imp. "let [God be true]" - let be. The imperative expressing a command. Obviously not "let God become", but more in the sense "let the presence of God be recognized", "be found", Lightfoot; "let God be seen to be true", Cassirer.
      de "and" - but, and. Here contrastive.
      kaqwV gegraptai "as it is written" - Quote is from Psalm 51:4, "you are right when you accuse me and justified in passing sentence", REB. God's judgment on sin is totally appropriate and does not cross over his covenant promises. Some argue that the quote serves to introduce the second question, see Cranfield.
      oJpwV an + subj. "so that [you may be proved right]" - that [you may be justified]. This construction expresses purpose although the proper construction is oJpwV an + fut.
      dikaiwqhV (dikaiow) aor. subj. "you may be proved right" - Obviously not "justified" in the sense of "made right", but rather "shown to be right / in the right", as NIV.
      en + dat. "when [you speak]" - in [your speech]. Possibly temporal, as NIV, but more likely instrumental, "by means of", Morris.
      nikhseiV (nikaw) fut. "prevail" - [so that] ... you will be victor, conqueror. Here Paul has properly used the future tense for the oJpwV an construction", see above. You will win the case", REB.
      en tw/ + inf. "when [you judge]" - in the [judgment]. This construction is usually temporal, as NIV. "You will win the case", REB. The case is won when God is judged / assessed by his creation (the infinitive being treated as passive, so Lightfoot) and stands vindicated.

v5
      The second objection, v5-8. The punch-line of the objection is most likely quoted in v8, with the other verses representing Paul's own argumentative style. "If my covenant infidelity promotes God's covenant fidelity, is it not unjust of God to judge my failure. In fact, taking the logic one step further, why not sin that grace may abound?"
      ei + ind. "if" - Conditional sentence, 1st class condition, where the condition is assumed to be true.
      hJmwn pro. "our [unrighteousness]" - Since this question derives from Paul's law-bound critics, the "our" would indicate Jewish believers, with whom Paul happily identifies. Other suggestions include, "Jews", Moo, "mankind", Dumbrell, "Christians", Lenski.
      sunisthsin (sunisthmi) pres. ind. "brings out .... more clearly" - demonstrates, exhibits. Taking a general sense "to bring together / stand together", the word was used legally in the sense "to prove", and therefore "demonstrate / show"; "exhibits God's justice more clearly", Cassirer, but possibly "serves to confirm the justice of God", NRSV. Something stronger is possible, "commend", AV.
      qeou dikaiosunhn (h) "God's righteousness" - righteousness of God. We can dispense with the pietistic idea of "God's righteousness" as a divine morality to be lived out by faith, and must choose between the genitive "of God" being partitive, "that status of being right with God which comes as his gift", O'Brien; or possessive/subjective, "the saving activity of God", Talbert, "God's dynamic fidelity to his covenant promises", Dumbrell. See The righteousness of God.
      mh "-" - This negation is used for a question expecting a negative answer, lit. "is God, the one inflicting wrath, unrighteous?"
      kata anrwpon legw "I am using a human argument" - according to man I say. "(This, of course, is the argument posed by my nomist brothers and sisters)."

v6
      mh genoito "certainly not" - may it not be so. "What a load of rubbish."
      epei "if that were so" - because, since, for. Here "for otherwise", BDF456/3, a classical usage.
      krinei (krinw) fut. "could [God] judge" - will judge. If God is not willing to condemn sinners, then how can he preside over the judgment of the world?
      ton kosmon (oV) "the world" - Not just Israel. Paul again alludes to universal sin and condemnation.

v7
      "It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then whey should he repay me by judging me a sinner?", Phillips.
      de "Someone might argue" - but, and. Variant gar, "for", exists, which would imply that v7 and 8 are a further development of the argument, but it seems more likely that they simply restate v5 and 6, so Metzger etc. "Or again", Cassirer.
      ei + ind. "if" - if [my ....]. Conditional clause, 1st class, where the condition is assumed to be true.
      "enhances" - This verb supplied by NIV.
      en + dat. "-" - [falsehood] by [me]. The preposition here is obviously instrumental.
      tw/ yeusmati (a atoV) "falsehood" - untruthfulness. Possibly "undependability", Morris, "my lie, that is, practice contrary to truth", Wesley.
      eperisseusen (perisseuw) aor. "increases" - abounds. The subtle strength of this verb, as opposed to sunisthmi, v5, "promote" as opposed to "reveal", indicates the hand of the objector. "My lack of integrity promotes the integrity of God to his glory."
      kagw "[why am I] still [condemned]" - also. Here not "also" but "actually", Moule. "Why am I actually judged to be a sinner?" Barrett.

v8
      kai "-" - and. This connective encourages quite a number of different ways to tie v8 to v7. Cranfield opts for UBS4, as NIV, a question mark at the end of v7 and at the end of agaqa, "that good may result?" The "and", untranslated in the NIV, implies that v8 is linked to v7, possibly a restatement of v7. The argument tends to be over whether v8 is Paul's response to v7, an objection posed to Paul, or whether v8 is another objection, see Moo. It seems likely that the quote in v8, unlike v1-7, records the actual words of Paul's objectors - it serves as the "illogical" conclusion of their argument. "Why not go all the way and suggest that we teach (as some actually slaughterously do)" "hey, lets live it up ... it will make God look even better", Junkins.
      mh "[why] not [say]" - The negation here is difficult to translate. When part of a question it implies a negative answer, but most translations have difficulty expressing this idea. Morris suggests "do we say perhaps ......?" obviously not. "Do you really think that the gospel we proclaim promotes the notion that ......?"
      legein oJti "that we say" - Infinitive with hoti introducing a dependent statement, here direct discourse.
      poihswmen (poiew) aor. subj. "let us do [evil]" - let us practise. Hortatory subjunctive.
      ta kaka adj. "evil" - evil things. The plural obviously indicates a string of evil acts, even possibly habitual evil.
      iJna + subj. "that [ ... may result]" - Forming a purpose clause, "in order that ..."
      w| "their" - whose [condemnation]. The subject is unclear; is Paul condemning (possibly God does the condemning) those who report that he teaches this heresy, or is he condemning the heresy itself?

v9
      Now, in verses 9-20, Paul drives home his contention that the human condition of universal sin and its consequence is not avoided by submission to the law, for the law only serves to make sin more sinful.
      ti oun "what shall we conclude then?" - what therefore? "What then", NRSV.
      proecomeqa (proecw) pres. mid/pas. "are we any better?" - active = are we better off, do we have an advantage? The NIV, as with most modern translations, treat the middle voice as active (middles are often active in NT). A passive seems unlikely, middle possible; "have we a shelter under which we can regard ourselves as delivered from wrath", Godet. Paul does note Jewish advantage in v1, but this is qualified such that in eternal terms there is no advantage. The "we" is obviously "we Jews", but in particular, "we believers who maintain our Jewish heritage and submit to the law of Moses as compared with Gentiles who don't" (but note "we" in v8; "we" = Paul's apostolic missionary team). It could be argued that this rules Paul out, but Paul could be a good Jew when the circumstances warranted it, but he would be the first to admit that, when it comes to a person's standing before God, Jewish heritage means nothing.
      ou pantwV "not at all!" - The definite sense "by no means", Barclay, as NIV, is accepted by most, eg., Turner, BAGD, although the Gk. properly says "not altogether", Cranfield.
      prohtiasameqa (proaitiaomai) aor. mid. "we have already made the charge" - act. = we have made a previous accusation. "We have already made the point that we are all sinners and stand under the judgment of God, irrespective of our submission to the law."
      einai (eimi) inf. "that" - Infinitive of the verb to-be serving to express a dependent statement, indirect speech.

v10
      The string of six quotations, Ps.14:1-3, 5-9, 140.3, 10:7, Isa.59.7-8 and Ps.36:1, prove the universality of sin, of our "moral bankruptcy and guilt before God", Hunter.
      oJti "-" - introducing a quote.
      dikaioV adj. "righteous" - Possibly taking Paul's sense of "count/treat as right/righteous", Barrett, and therefore "possess covenant status"; "no one", "not even one" has ever gained, maintained, or progressed this standing through their own effort applied to the law, although there are some who are right by faith. So, "there is no one who is righteous under the law", all sin and all stand condemned.

v11
      oJ ekzhtwn (ekzhtew) pres. part. "one who seeks" - the one seeking. The prefix expresses "earnest seeking." Again, it must be "seeking" apart from grace.

v12
      hcrewqhsan (acreiow) aor. pas. "we have [together] become worthless" - we have become useless, unprofitable. Aorist is possibly ingressive where the stress is placed on the beginning of the action, so NIV.
      eJwV eJnow "not even one" - until one. In the sense of "not even reaching one." "There isn't one person who does right", CEV.

v13-14
      Paul draws on the Psalms to illustrate the evil of mankind, particularly applicable to the self-righteous and their tongue.
      anewgmenoV (anoigw) perf. pas. part. "are open [graves]" - having been opened. The participle is probably adjectival, qualifying the noun "grave"; "a grave which has been opened". The image of a throat like an open grave is somewhat strange, but possibly the stench of the open grave is what is intended, and this related to a deceitful tongue, so: "their talk is foul and filthy like the stench of an open grave", LB.
      edoliousan (doliow) imperf. "practice deceit" - they were working deceit. The imperfect tense is durative; "They use their tongues for treachery", REB.

v15-17
      Isaiah 59:7-8 proclaims God's judgment upon faithless Israel, here illustrating Israel's evil, an evil applicable to the self-righteous.
      ekceai "[are swift] to shed [blood]" - to pour, shed. There is no verb in the Gk. (an ellipsis) so it must be supplied, eg., "they have swift (adj. "sharp", so obviously "swift") feet", the infinitive is then epexegetic, explaining something about the "feet". The unrighteous of Israel (although v15 is possibly wider) live in a destructive way. "Everyone is in a hurry to destroy."
      In v16 it is again best to supply a verb, eg., "they spread ruin and misery along (Gk. "in/by") their path", TNT.
      v17, "they do not recognize (Gk. "know") the way that leads to fellowship (Gk. "peace") with God and one another."

v18
      foboV (oV) "fear" - If "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom", then they haven't even begun to relate to God; "he plays no part in directing their life", Cranfield. "Fear", probably in the sense of "respect", Fitzmyer, although Morris argues for "the terror of the Lord."

v19
      oJti "that" - Introducing a dependent statement of thinking.
      toiV "those who are" - to the ones.
      en "under [the law]" - in, on. Obviously taking a local sense, "in the sphere of" so "those within the sphere of the law," Wuest; "inside the law", Moffatt." "We know (= "we Jews know") that the instruction of the law (Mosaic law rather than scriptures) apply to those who have placed themselves under / submit to the authority of the law."
      iJna + subj. "so that [... may be silenced .... held accountable]" - Possibly expressing purpose, "in order that", although result (consecutive) seems better, "with the result that."
      fragh/ (frassw) aor. pas. subj. "may be silenced" - [every mouth] may be stopped. Courtroom imagery where a defendant is unable to answer the charge due to the degree of incrimination.
      paV oJ kosmoV "the whole world" - all the world. The whole world is not incriminated by the law of Moses, rather, a Jew under the law is incriminated by the law and thus they, along with the Gentiles (J+G = "the whole world"), stand guilty.
      genhtai (ginomai) aor. mid. subj. "held accountable" - become [guilty]. "Guilty" in the sense of having broken the law and thus subject to punishment.
      tw/ qew/ "to God" - The dative is local, "before God / in God's presence." v20
      Paul now summarizes his argument: Those who place themselves under the law of Moses, as with all humanity, are in a state of sin and face the condemnation of God, for the law serves only to expose sin, not establish, maintain or progress right-standing before God.
      dioti "therefore" - because, therefore. A causal "because" is possible, "for the truth is that no human being will be ......", Cassirer, particularly if the hina clause in v19 is final (purpose), but a consequential, "therefore", seems better, as NIV.
      pasa sarx "no one" - all flesh. "no human being", REB.
      dikaiwqhsetai (dikaiow) fut. pas. "will be declared righteous" - will be justified. "Declared righteous" is possibly the sense, but such a meaning reflects a particular theological position, as does "made righteous", "counted/treated as righteous", "have conferred on them a righteous status", "gain covenant status", ..... How about "no person will strand right before God by works of the law"?
      ex "by" - "Out of / from", as of identifying source, is OK, but probably best expressed in the sense of an expenditure for some end, eg., buy something "with" money, so here gain righteousness "with" works of the law; best expressed instrumentally, "by means of."
      ergwn nomou "observing the law" - works of the law. This is virtually a technical term for Paul, meaning "obedience to the law of Moses."
      gar "rather" - for. Better, "because", Cassirer.
      dia + gen. "through" - through, by means of. "Through" identifying the function of the law, not to create, maintain, or progress righteousness, but rather, expose the human state of sin.
      epignwsiV (iV ewV) "we become conscious of" - recognition, knowledge. In the sense, perception of. "The law forces us to face our complicity."


[Printer icon]   A print friendly justified 10pt Times New Roman version sized to fit a 1 page A4, or 2 page A5 format.
 
The Lectionary. Sequential Lectionary readings and sermons.
[Pumpkin Cottage]
Pumpkin Cottage Ministry Resources
Lectionary Bible Studies and Sermons
www.lectionarystudies.com