God's Charge: All Mankind Under Sin

OK, if you'll open your Bibles, please, to Romans chapter 3. We're down to verse 9. I'm going to read verse 9 down through verse 12, because we're not going to get past there this morning. Paul starts off in verse 9. He says, what then? Are we better than they? No, in no way. For we have before proved both the Jew and Greek or Gentile, that they are all under sin. As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understands. There is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way. They are altogether become unprofitable. There is none that doeth good, no, not one. Wow, pretty condemning on the on the Human Races Net.

Okay, as we look at verse 9, and we may not get too far today, but when I started looking at verse 9, my first question is, when it says, what then, are we better than they? So the question that comes to mind is who's the we and who's the they? So, as you're looking at that, what would be, as you look at it, what would be your thoughts in terms of who's the we and who's the they? Is that a hand up, Ruthie? Or you just, go ahead. Okay, we the Jews? are better than, and who's the they? The Gentiles. Okay, the rest of them, alright. Any others? Now, that is the most common interpretation. In fact, it's the only interpretation that that I've seen anywhere.

But as you go through it, you have to ask the question that we is a pronoun, and a pronoun is a babysitter for a noun. And so the noun that it stands for is called the antecedent. This might be a little lesson in English this morning. But it's critical. So the question is, here's a pronoun, and there must be a noun that it stands for somewhere previously in the text. So what is it? And the same thing is for the they. They is a pronoun, so what is the antecedent? What noun does they stand for?

We, is it singular or plural? Plural. And so we have to look for a noun that is plural. And we also have to look for a noun that is the same gender. So there are two critical things with respect to pronouns. A pronoun stands, babysits for a noun, but it has to have the same gender and it has to have the same number, thank you, than the noun it stands for. We have one English teacher here. Were you an English teacher? No? Okay.

So if I say Bob is traveling and he's been traveling this week and in his travels he met a lot of people and he had a lot of interesting conversations. So when I say he met a lot of people, who am I referring to? Bob. And same gender, same number. So if I would say Bob was traveling this week and she met a lot of people and she had some very interesting conversations, would that make sense? It sounds like one of my second graders. Okay, it doesn't make sense because the gender is incorrect, right? And if I said Bob has been traveling this week and they met a lot of interesting people, some interesting conversations. What's wrong? The number is incorrect. Okay.

So, so, so the question then is, when it says are we, let's, let's look at some possible interpretations. One interpretation is Ruthie said, are we Jews, which Paul includes himself better than they, the Gentiles. So in this interpretation, Paul identifies and includes himself with the Jews. There's several different interpretations. I didn't put them all down. But another interpretation is, are we, believers, better than they, that is, the Jews and Gentiles? In this interpretation, Paul identifies himself with believers under grace. Two possible interpretations. Now, what I want you to do, and so the question is, well, which one is it?

How can we determine? We have talked about this in many different classes here, in terms of how to study the Bible, where you make observations, And in observations, you can ask questions, you can look at the grammar, you can look at the context, you look at the historical facts, you look at the culture. There's all of those aspects of observation. And you simply ask the question, what does it say?

And then interpretation, after you go through all the observations, you ask the question, what does it mean as a result of all of the observations you make? And then when you come up with an interpretation, in order to know that that interpretation is correct, you must correlate it with the rest of scripture. If it doesn't correlate with the rest of scripture throughout the interpretation, it must correlate. Then the last step is appropriation. Now you have a truth that you've dug out of Scripture. Now you appropriate it. You make it your own. You take ownership of that wonderful truth. So that's the last step in appropriation. So we appropriated the truth by faith. All right.

I want you to help me now, because what we're going to do is we're going to ask the question Has Paul used the personal pronoun, we, where he has identified himself with the Jew previously in the text? Is that a fair question? Because here you come to verse 9, and it says, we. And if it's the Jews, we the Jews, and Paul includes himself as a Jew, has he done it anywhere in the previous text?

So I want you to turn back to chapter 1. And what we're going to look at is where Paul talks about the Jews. So look at verse 16. Paul says, For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Question, does Paul include himself here? Does Paul include himself as a Jew? No, he's separating out Jew and Gentile, isn't he? For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation, to who? The Jew and the Greek. The Jew first, and also to the Gentile. Okay, turn over to chapter 2. Look at verse 9, where he uses the word Jew. tribulation and anguish upon every soul that does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek."

Question, does Paul include himself here with the Jew? I need to see every head shaking. Okay, now, because he's separating himself from the Jew here, isn't he? Paul knows that he's not going to go through the tribulation and anguish. He's separating himself out from the Jew.

Look at the next verse, verse 10. But glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Does Paul include himself here when he talks about the Jew? Shake your heads. No, he doesn't. He's talking about the Jew. He's talking about the Gentile. He's not including himself.

Now, look down at verse 17. Starting at verse 17, all the way through the end of the chapter, Paul uses the word Jew. Starting at verse 17. In verse 17 he says, but if you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make thy boast of God, and know his will, and goes on into verse 18. Tell me in verse 17, is Jew singular or plural?

Hard to tell though, isn't it? Isn't it hard to tell from the English? But if you look at the Greek, it's in the singular. But you, if you call yourself a Jew, you are called a Jew. You, singular. Okay? And rest in the law, etc. Does Paul include himself here? No, it's not a we, it's a you. You, Jew.

Verse 18. excuse me, verse 19, he goes on, and you are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness. So in verse 19 he uses the word you, pronoun you, and he uses yourself. Both in the singular, still singular, Therefore, does he include himself? Now, verse 9, that pronoun was a we, plural. All of this is singular. He's not including himself here.

Look at verse 21. Four times, there's the personal pronoun you. You, therefore, who teach another, Don't you teach yourself? You that preach, a man should not steal. Do you steal? Four times the personal pronoun is used, singular or plural. Still singular, still singular. Paul doesn't include himself here. In verse 22, again, the personal pronoun. It's four times used and it's in the singular. Does somebody have a New American Standard? Yeah. Because I've got a King James and it's Tao and I'm trying to convert as I read. So Jim, can you read from New American Standard? It'll be a little clearer. Twenty-two? Twenty-two. Sure. You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? Okay, you see that you, that four times, personal pronouns, singular again.

Paul doesn't include himself with the Jew here. Because the antecedent of all of these yous is what? The noun that was mentioned somewhere in the text is where? What's the noun? It's talking about you, you, you, the Jew, singular. but it's a pronoun. It babysits for a noun. What's the noun it stands for? You the Jew. Okay, excellent. It goes back to verse 17. The antecedent or the noun that it stands for, the pronoun stands for is the Jew, back in verse 17. Paul doesn't include himself. Look at verse 23.

Jim, would you read that? How many times did you hear the word you? Personal pronoun. Twice. Two times. still singular, still referring back to verse 17, the Jew. Look at verse 24. Jim, you want to read that? For the name of God is blasphemed among Gentiles because of you, just as it is written.

OK. Now, in verse 24, you is a plural. It's hard to tell. It's hard to tell here. that it's plural. Now, he changes from singular to plural. Now, the question is, if you is a pronoun that babysits for noun, which is plural, what is the antecedent? What is the noun that you stands for? Okay, back to verse 24. For the name of God is blasphemy among the Gentiles through you, plural. Who do you think the you here is?

Jews. Okay. Now the Jews weren't mentioned plural in the context before. But look at the words in verse 24. as it is written. What does that say? Quotation. So it's quoting an Old Testament verse where the U stands for the Jews. So the U plural is still not in the context. Are you guys following me? Is that okay? So the reason why it's you, plural, is because it's just quoting Old Testament. Okay. So down to verse 25. In verse 25, there are three yous. Jim, would you read that? For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the law. But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Okay.

So there's two yous and a you're again. singular, and the antecedent, the noun that this pronoun stands for is what? The Jew? And where is it located? Back in verse 17. Thank you. Okay. Then go over to chapter 3. In chapter 3, it says, what advantage then has the Jew? Now, there is no pronoun there. The Jew is a noun, and it's singular.

Or what profit is there of the circumcision? And there's a definite article there of the circumcision, the whole group that are identified by circumcision. Singular. And then in verse 2, it says, much every way, chiefly because unto them, singular or plural? Plural, were committed the oracles of God. Who's the them? Here's another pronoun. It stands for a noun. What is the noun in the context? Jews. It's the Jews, but so far we've only seen Jew singular except that quotation from the Old Testament. But go back to verse 1. It talks about the Jew and the circumcision. Lumping them together and them.

How many hated English? You have to know something about me. I hated English. I hated what we're doing right now. Hated, hated. And then when I started studying the Bible, I said, you know, in order to understand things, I really need to get a feel for the Greek. And I started Greek. And I lasted about three weeks, and I had to drop out. And I had to drop out because I didn't know English. I had no idea. Subject, verb, direct object, prepositional, phrase, pronouns, antecedents. I mean, that was Greek to me.

So I went to Arapaho Community College, and I took English, and I took grammar. And then I said, oh, OK, I got through first year grammar. Now, boy, I'd like to really get into the context of things and do sentence diagramming. And we have one sentence diagrammer in this class, and I won't tell you her name, who is an expert. So I went back to Rapid Community College.

I said, I'd like to take sentence diagramming. Sorry, we don't teach it. You don't teach it? Oh, really? I called every college in the Denver area, almost every high school. I got down to my, I think, the 17th high school I called to see if they had an evening class that I could take. And I got to this one English teacher in the English department. She says, no, we don't teach sentence diagramming. But she says, you know, I'm curious.

Why in the world would you want to learn sentence diagramming? Nobody wants to learn sentence diagramming. I said, the reason is I want to start Greek and I can't take Greek until I understand syntax, understand subject, verb, direct, object and all that sort of stuff. So she said, you know, my love is sentence diagramming. If you want to learn sentence diagramming, when did you come to my evening class, a GED class, and I've got all these high school dropouts, and I'll set you aside.

I'll teach you sentence diagramming, and I'll teach them basic grammar." I said, you will? She said, yes. So, anyhow, I tell you all this because What we're doing is important in terms of studying scripture. You really have to understand the syntax, the stuff that we're doing now. It's important. Okay. Let me just summarize.

So far, as we've looked through the context where it talks about Jew, Paul doesn't include himself or identify himself with the Jew in those three verses we looked at. Then in what we just went through now, as you see, all the references we went through, there was the pronoun you, singular, except for this one plural, but that was a quotation from the Old Testament. But Jew was singular all the way through. And look, the observation is, Paul doesn't include himself or identify himself with the Jew. So, now the question is, why in the world then in verse 9, does he all of a sudden identify himself with the Jew if there's no previous reference?

That's what bugged me when I started looking at this verse. So, anyhow, that's the observation. Now, when you go through this procedure in terms of studying scripture. Observation, interpretation, correlation, appropriation. Observations could be just basic questions. And that's all I've done. That's all we're doing this morning. Just basic questions. Here's the second question.

If we, equal to Jews, that is plural, then isn't there somewhat of a contradiction between verses 3.1 and 2 and 3.9? Remember, go back to 3.1. 3.1 says, what advantage then has the Jew? What profit is there of circumcision? What's the answer? Much. Much. Much in every way, chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Now, Paul lists one advantage, right, in this passage. Remember, we went over to chapter 9 when we went through this and said, this is not the only advantage. There were a whole slug of advantages to the Jew. To the Jew was made the covenants and the promises and the law was given to the Jew. All of those things were listed in terms of the advantage of the Jew, right? So the advantage will profit much in every way.

So you get down to verse 9. Okay? And it says, what then? If you interpret it, are we Jews better than they? What's the answer? No. Is there a great difference between the word better and advantage up in verse 1 or profit up in verse 1? It all depends upon what that meaning of better is. But you look at that and say, is that the contrast he's making? Because he just made a contrast up in verse 1 or 2 in terms of the advantage of the Jew. If he comes down to verse 9 and he says, are we Jews better than they? The answer is no. There's an apparent contradiction.

Right? OK. Here's the Amplified Bible. I love the Amplified. I really love the Amplified. Look what it says. This is a direct quote now. Well then, are we... How is it interpreted? We? Jews. Are we Jews superior and better than they? They don't define who they is. If they define we Jews, then who was the they? The Gentiles. No, not at all. We have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, that is Gentiles, are under sin, held down, and subject to its power and control. So I find this very interesting.

So my question is to these guys who did the interpretation, Where did you get the antecedent? Where did you get the antecedent for we and interpreted Jews? So it's a simple observation that the New American Standard interprets we as Jews. However, if superior and better, are consistent with advantage, if this word bitter and advantage and profit are somewhat the same, then there appears to be a contradiction between these two verses, right?

Okay, observation. Next observation is a question. And here's something that's critical, that in verse 9, let's go back to verse 9, in Romans chapter 3. What then? Are we better than they? No and no way, for we have before proved both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. There are the two we's, the two personal pronouns, right? In verse 9. Now here's the question. Do those personal pronouns have the same antecedent or is the antecedent different? Why would the antecedent be different? Why would the first we be Jews and the second we be believers or whatever, however you interpret it? What do you think? If the We's are the same, then it would read like this. And so, this is a neat way to do it. You just write out the verse and put the interpretation right in the verse. So, put the translation of We right in the verse. So, what then?

Are we Jews, including Paul, Paul, right, is including himself, better than they, the Gentiles? No, in no way. For we, Jews, including Paul, if the we's are the same, including Paul, have before proved, or I think the New American Standard says charged, charged both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. Does that make sense? I mean, does it make sense that it says, for we Jews, before proof that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin?

It doesn't make sense, does it? So, let's make the we's different. If not the same, we would read like this. What then? Are we Jews, including Paul, better than they, the Gentiles, knowing no way, For we, if we interpret believers, have proved, both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. So, in this question, it's taking that first we, each time, as the Jews, including Paul. We haven't substituted yet. We, believers here, get. We're getting to it. We're coming to it. But, so the question is, does this all make sense?

Now, it would make sense if there was an antecedent that we could find in the text that we Jews, including Paul, but Paul never included himself prior, right? Okay. What about the Jews in 3.1? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Okay, that's a good question. Anybody want to?

No, in verse 1 it's singular. But what Dave is saying is if you take the Jew and the circumcision, then it's day. Right? Yeah, it's they, just like in verse 2, much in every way chiefly because unto them, now it's plural, so they've taken the Jew and the circumcision, them. But don't say unto us, say unto them that the oracles were committed.

Okay, see? Okay, that's a good observation? Good observation. Good. Okay, another good question. In verse 5, but if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Who's the our? It's all of man, isn't it? Mankind. I mean, it would be everyone, wouldn't it? Yeah, because in verse 4 it seems to say, I mean, it seems like it could be every man. It means that God is true. Every man is alive. Okay. As it is written. Every man. Where are you now, Margaret? Well, it says, as... Which verse are you in? Number 4. let God be true, but every man is a liar, as it is written. Okay. Okay, but back to whose question? Our. That was Jim's question. Jim.

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, so what are the possibilities for our? Is he talking about our Jews, including Paul? But if our righteousness can mend the righteousness of God, what shall we? Who's the we? Do you see why studying scripture can be sometimes tough? If you ask the questions, if you just blow through it, if you just whiz on through it, there'll never be a problem. But when you stop it, and ask them interpretive questions, you get bogged down. But it's wonderful to be bogged down, because getting bogged down, you start understanding what the text says.

Is Paul saying in verse 5, but if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, is he saying that These unbelievers were accusing Paul and his team of unrighteousness. And what he's saying, if our, talking about himself and other believers, if our unrighteousness command the righteousness of God, what shall we, that is, believers, say? Is God unrighteous? Who take his vengeance?

I speak as a man. So, I think what he's saying in verse 5, he's talking about himself and other believers, and he's being attacked, because look at verse 8, and rather, as we are slanderously reported, You see the slander that is coming at Paul and his team and other believers who are preaching the gospel? And as some affirm that we say, Paul and his team, that we say, and here's what these unbelievers are saying about Paul and his team, let us do evil that good may come. Okay? So, in verse 5, The hour, the we, are believers. It's Paul and his team who's proclaiming the gospel. Same thing in verse 8. Does that make sense? So, are all the we's in verse starting, or the hour in the hour and the wheeze, starting in verse 5 through verse 8, the same? All the same? They all have the same antecedent? Which is believers?

Good question. So does that lead into 9? So the question is, would Paul be changing antecedents in verse 9, when he goes right into 9? He goes right into 9 and says, what then? Are we better than they? Does he change the antecedent to we, the noun that we stands for? It doesn't make sense, does it? Grammatical sense. I don't think it makes grammatical sense. I don't think contextually it makes sense.

If you take the first we in 9 and say it's Jews. It's we believers, the church, are we better than they? Okay, we've jumped ahead a little, but that's good. Because here was the question, is the antecedent of we in 3.9 different than the antecedents in verse 8? That's Rachel's question. Answer, don't think so. So the observation I think that we can make is this, that there is no grammatical or contextual reason for the we's to be different in 3.8 and 3.9. Thus, interpret them the same. Just interpret them the same.

So an expanded translation of verse 8 would look like this, and not rather as we in And in red, I have the interpretation of we, believers, be slanderously reported, and as some, and the some are unbelievers, affirm that we, believers, are same. Let us do evil that good may come. Whose, and the whose refer to these unbelievers, whose damnation is just. God is just in condemning them. Then in verse nine, What then?

Are we, that is believers, you know, those are the church, better or excel or superior in and of ourselves? So what Paul is saying is that, I think what Paul is saying is this, is that if you look at us believers who's preaching the gospel, and here we're preaching the gospel to these Jews, unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles, are we, do we excel or are superior in and of ourselves? Is there something, it's a middle voice, stressing one's self. Are we in and of ourselves better or superior than they? Is there something within us? Answer, no. Nothing. We have nothing. It's all out from God's grace. It's not within us. It's none of ourselves.

Does that make sense in terms of what he's saying? So we're not superior. or better than they, and the they, then, is the Jews and Gentiles. And doesn't it make sense, and flow right into the context, no, in no wise, for we believers, the church, have before proved or charged that both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. So do you see that Paul is distinguishing between three groups of people? The Jew, the Gentile, and the church believers.

He's making that distinction. And so, if you don't come to this passage of Scripture with a dispensational theology, you'll never see it. Never, ever see it. So, what's interesting is this. So here's the question, what is the Amplified Bible? And many, if not most all, I couldn't find one. I don't have that many commentaries, but everyone I looked at, I couldn't find one. So you better go home and check me out, because there isn't one that interprets it this way. So the question is, why does the Amplified Bible and most Bible teachers translate 3.9 that the we in 3.9 is Jews which include Paul?

Why do they do that? I want to give you one example, and this is, and Zodiates, I refer to him all the time, he's done this wonderful complete word study dictionary, and he looks, if you take a look at the word better, and what he says, he says, figuratively, it means to excel, to have preference or preeminence, to be superior or better.

And he goes on, he says, in the New Testament, only in the middle of the voice, pro-echemi, or pro-echemi, to excel, be superior, used in Romans 3.9, meaning, this is what he says, meaning, can we Jews then claim ourselves to be better off than the Gentiles? And et means author's translation, in respect to being sinners before God.

Now, here is the question. Paul is including himself in the we, Jews, right? Here is the question. Does Paul consider himself a sinner? I see some head shaking, yes. Okay. Okay. And so here's my next question. Are you a sinner? Before God's eyes, are you a sinner? Now this is a trick question. Because those who answered yes, and those who answered no, You're both right. And the thing is, I have to further define the question. If I ask the question, if I say, are you a sinner positionally before God? Answer, no. What are you positionally before God?

A saint. Righteous. And so when Paul writes to the Corinthian believers who are steeped in sin, he writes to the what at Corinth? To the saints at Corinth. Positionally, they're saints. Now, conditionally, we sin. But this The way this is worded, it looks like that Zodias is saying that Paul is a sinner, like positionally. And Paul is not a sinner, positionally. So, that's his assumption, that we Jews, including Paul, are sinners. And obviously God does not see us or Paul as sinners.

We're saints in the Lord Jesus Christ. Okay. Does all of this make sense? In verse 9, it says, We have before proved both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. And when it talks about being under sin, It talks about all mankind being under sin. Who are we talking about? Are we talking about the people in this room? The people in this church? Okay. Remember what the text says.

Both Jews and Gentiles are are under sin, right? Jews and Gentiles. It's not talking about the church. So when it's talking about under sin, it's talking about all mankind being under sin under its dominion, under its power, under its penalty. We are not under the dominion or the power or the penalty of sin as believers. So you see that Paul is making a distinction between Gentiles Jews and the Church. So the Church is not under sin. Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.

Any pressing questions? So as you read your scripture, I want you to get hung up like I get hung up in terms of just who's this and who's that. Father, we again are so thankful for this time together in your Word. We thank you, Father, that the Spirit of God is the one that leads us in the truth and thank you that he reveals all of the things of the Lord Jesus Christ to us that we may grow in his grace and knowledge. Father, I just pray if anything was taught or said this morning that is not consistent with your word, that you would reveal that to us, that we may correct it. And we just thank you now. We pray for the service. We pray for Vern. And we thank you for him and the ministry. And pray, Father, that each of our hearts would be edified in the Lord Jesus Christ. In his name we pray.