https://youtu.be/viLWKUug4Zc
In our verse by verse study of Romans last time we completed Rom 2:16 we were on the third word of verse 17 so today we will start from the beginning of verse 17.
Rom 2:17; Verses 17-29 describe the judgment of God's perfect integrity toward the Jew who has the law. Verses 17-20 are the protasis of a conditional sentence. Then verses 21-23 are the apodosis.
In a conditional sentence there are two clauses the first is called protasis, the second apodosis. The first clause contains the supposition. The protasis of a first class condition is a supposition from the viewpoint of reality such as if and it is true, or if and we assume it is true.
The second-class condition is supposition from the viewpoint unreality. The third class condition is supposition from the standpoint of possibility. The fourth class condition is supposition from the standpoint of probability.
In this passage the protasis or the assumption is contained in verses 17-20 and the clause containing the statement based on the claims of the protasis or the conclusion to the protasis that is called apodosis is in verses 21-23.
It starts with a description of the false assumptions of legalism. There are four false assumptions in the protasis of verses 17-20. It begins with three Greek words, "Ei de su." The first word is the conditional particle "ei," "if," used with any tense of the indicative mood introducing the protasis of a conditional clause.
The second word in the Greek sentence is "de" it is called a postpositive, enclitic. This is the postpositive conjunctive particle that is used as an adversative conjunction to set up a contrast between the self-righteous Gentile described in verses 1-16, and the self-righteous Jew described inverses 17-29.
Paul has already demonstrated that the self-righteous Gentile has an equivalent righteousness to the self-righteous Jew. So "de" is the dividing line between the two. In the English there are no postpositive enclitic particles, so it always begins with "but if" rather than the Greek form "If but."
The third word is "su," a second person singular personal pronoun. It is a reference to the self-righteous Jew. Because we are going to have a very strong contrast, instead of "but if" we can keep the word order by saying "If on the other hand you" or "But if on the other hand." "you bear the name" "you" is translated from "su."
Then we have the present passive indicative from "eponomazo," taken from two words: "epi" = to or upon; "onomazo" = to name. It means to attach a name, to name after, to nickname, to give a second name, or to surname.
This is the only occurrence of this verb in the New Testament. By compounding "opnomazo" By using this construction Paul takes racial and national pride and privilege away from the Jews.
If he had wanted the Jews to retain their racial and national pride and privilege he would have used "onomazo" that would be translated "You are called."
But it is not "opnomazo;" it is "eponomazo" so it is an entirely different word. It means to be classified as. It is impersonal. So Paul takes all of the pride and privilege out of being a Jew because they are leaning on their national pride and privilege as a basis for their self-righteousness.
There is nothing wrong with the Jewish race but if it is a source of self-righteousness then the race is distorted into something it is not. A good translation is "If on the other hand you are classified as a Jew."
The present tense is a retroactive progressive present, that refers to what has begun in the past and continues into the present time. Self-righteous arrogant Jews will always have a problem with this.
The passive voice: the Jew receives the action of the verb; his arrogance is removed by the simple adding of a preposition "eis" compounding the verb. The indicative mood is declarative for historical reality.
Next is "Jew" from the proper noun "Ioudaios" It is the direct object but it always occurs in the nominative case because in spite of the fact that Paul is trying to knock them down a peg or two, the Jews are the greatest race of people in human history.
It indicates that Paul is going to be totally objective even though he himself is one of the greatest Jews who ever lived. This is another anartharous noun so there is no definite article in front of it. The absence of the definite article emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the proper noun rather than its unique identity.
"and rely upon the law, the connective "kai", plus the present middle indicative of "epanapaue" that means to rest upon or rely on. In other words, Paul knocks them down to pick them up and show them that they are relying on the wrong thing.
They were relying on having morality from keeping the law as a means of adjustment to God's justice. The present tense is a static present for a perpetual condition among Jewish legalists.
The middle voice emphasizes the part taken by the subject in the action of the verb in this case reliance on having morality from keeping the Mosaic Law for salvation.
The indicative mood is declarative for the historical reality of Jewish legalism and dependence on keeping the law for God's approval. Then the locative of sphere in the singular of "nomos" translated" law," the lack of the definite article shows that Paul has the greatest respect for the law.
The Jews were being disrespectful of the law because they were trying to use it as a tool for salvation. There is nothing wrong with the law; it is perfect, holy, just, and good but there is something wrong with those who distort it into a system of salvation and spirituality by works.
In the English we put in the definite article because that is comparable to the lack of the article in the Greek.
Next there are two phrases connected by two conjunctions so the first "kai" is translated "not only" and the second " kai" is translated "but also."
If on the one hand you are classified as a Jew (and you are,) and not only rely on the law (for salvation). Then the second "kai " means "but also."
" boast in God" the word translated "boast' is the present middle indicative of "kauchaomai." This is a retroactive progressive present tense denoting what has happened in the past and continues into the present wherever there is Jewish legalism.
The Jew's legalism is always related to keeping the law. This is a deponent verb in the middle voice that is active in meaning. The Jewish legalists produce the action of the verb, and they boast about their relationship with God that is based on their law keeping.
The indicative mood is declarative representing the verbal idea from the viewpoint of reality. Not only do they try to use the law as an instrument of salvation, but they also boast about the fact that they have a relationship with God on the basis of their law keeping.
Plus the preposition "en," plus the instrumental of "Theos," again we have the absence of the definite article before "Theos" emphasizing the perfection and superiority of God rather than His unique identity.
Rom 2:17; Expanded Translation: "If on the one hand you are classified as a Jew (and you are, and not only rely on the law (for salvation), but you also boast about r your relationship with God (and you do)."
We see here that the self-righteous Jews are deluded because they make three false assumptions that are described with the three verbs in the present tense:
a) The present passive indicative of "eponomazo" that indicates the racial pride of the self-righteous Jew;
b) The present middle indicative of "epanapaue" that indicates the standard of works on which the self-righteous Jew relies for salvation;
c) The present active indicative of "kauchaomai" that indicates the arrogance of the self-righteous Jew in assuming a relationship with God can be established on the basis of human works rather than on the basis of God's policy of grace and unfailing integrity love.
The three verbs combine racial, cultural, functional, and mental arrogance. They combine to produce self-righteousness and religion. God's integrity rejects all forms of religion and self- righteousness.
Even worse, the religious, self-righteous Jews boast that they possess a relationship with God that they do not actually possess. The three verbs combine to form an illusion of superior privilege that does not exist.
The Jews actually do have superior privilege ut it is spiritual not physical so it takes doctrine to understand it and in the Church Age that privilege is superseded by the privilege of the new spiritual species of the church.
As this protasis of a first class condition continues into the next three verses other delusions are specified. In verse 18, the distortion of the law; in verse 19, misplaced confidence in self; and in verse 20, an arrogant emphasis on superficial details.
What we learn here is that God loves His own righteousness and He can't stand self-righteousness. God's love for His righteousness makes it impossible for His righteousness to be compromised.
We also learn that God's righteousness demands equivalent righteousness but man cannot produce God's righteousness; man can only produce sinfulness so when people try to reproduce an equivalent to God's righteousness what comes out of that effort is actually sinfulness and evil.
God's justice must judge and condemn sinfulness so before God can give His perfect righteousness to a sinner God's justice must deal with the sinner's sins.
The sins of the world were poured out on Jesus Christ where they were judged by God's justice so instant adjustment to God's justice by the imputation of God's righteousness and salvation can only be attained by believing in Jesus Christ, because believing is totally non-meritorious.
Self-righteous people judge others by the use of slander, gossip, maligning, and evil criticism. Self-righteous people regard themselves as the favorites of partial God because of their conformity to the legalism and ritual of the Mosaic Law.
But inwardly self-righteous people are sinful, evil, vicious people who hate the truth about God that is revealed in God's Word of truth.
Any relationship between God and man is exclusively based on God's justice where the polar administration of God's justice produces blessing or cursing.
When the self-righteous unbeliever rejects the Gospel their inward reversionism against the truth becomes the target for God's judgment against evil in time.
These judgments from God's justice are a prelude to the eternal judgment of the self-righteous unbeliever at the great white throne that results in their being thrown into the eternal lake of fire. Rev 20:15;