Chapter Five

  Dr. Jay Snell Newsletter Feed and Free Bonuses  

More Bizarre Interpretations Derived From That Greatest, Old Testament Blunder That Has Thoroughly Permeated Current, Christian Theology

In this section, we verify our previous assertion that the confused view of the purpose of the Law by the followers of The God-Looked-Down Theory adversely affects their interpretations of other Scriptures. When a theological system is erected upon an error, everything in the system beyond that error will be tainted. To get rid of Abraham's EULOGIA, The God-Looked-Down Theory must hold to the Jewish Great Disconnect Theory of the law. As such, their whole theology is tainted.

Galatians 3:22, 23 and Romans 11:32 Wrongly Interpreted by the God-Looked-Down Theory

Consider their interpretation of the following New Testament examples. "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe" (Galatians 3:22). "But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (Galatians 3:23). "For God hath concluded them all in unbeliefm that he might have mertcy upon all”  (Romans 11:32).

By common consent, The God-Looked- Down Theory regards these passages as teaching that God and the Scriptures have enclosed all mankind in the prison-house of unbelief, sin, and the law so that the only way they can escape is by faith in Jesus Christ. God and the Scripture are seen as the jailer and the human race as the prisoner. God and the Scripture locked all men in this prison of unbelief, sin, and the law, forcing them to stay there until they agree to believe in Christ. Both God and the Scripture refuse to let them escape by the works of the law, but will allow them to escape if they believe on Jesus. Earlier we proved from the Greek text that the Law was added to the Abrahamic promises without changing them. The Law became an integral part of the promises. It was of the same substance since there is no New Testament example of PROSTITHEMI, adding apples to oranges. We also determined that the Law, like the promises, was an act of grace, and that it functioned (until Jesus came) as a guardian to prevent the Jews from losing the Abrahamic blessings. Now, we compare the above with the confused interpretation of Galatians 3:23 by the followers of The God-Looked- Down Theory. An American Commentary says, "The pronoun 'we' appears to represent the Jewish Christians, who, before the gospel came proclaiming the way of life through faith in Christ, were guarded under the Law, lest  they might escape from its control" (An American Commentary on the New Testament, p. 49: Galatians). Weust says, "The law is a ministry of condemnation" (KW p. 107). "The law was a jailer who held in custody those who were subjected to sin in order that they should not escape the consciousness of their sins and their liability to punishment" (KW p. 109). "The Law shut them up to one avenue of escape, namely, faith in Christ...." (KW p. 109). Such words and phrases as condemnation, jailer, held, custody, subjected, sin, not escape, punishment, and shut them up, demonstrate that The God-Looked-Down Theory has failed to group the Law statements properly. In this passage, they give a Category Two interpretation to a Category One statement. Rather than an act of grace, they see the Law as wrath, punishment, jailed, etc. Again, it must be underscored, this negative view of the Law rests upon these three things: (1) the space given to close the doorway to hell, (2) the fervency and urgency of the New Testament writers, (3) and the failure to properly categorize the corrective language used in the Law statements.

This flawed, negative view of the purpose of the Law affects their interpretations of the other two Scriptures also. In demonstration of this, we look now at their view of Galatians 3:22 and Romans 11:32, as the proponents of this Theory speak for  themselves. In the following quotes it is apparent at once that since the Law, according to their theological system, has become a negative (associating the Law with punishment, guilt, jail, custody, wrath, sin, no escape, etc.), this same, flawed negativism permeates their entire interpretative system. Since the Law, (a positive act of God's grace), is associated with the above listed negatives, to be consistent they are forced to jam other Scriptures which teach the grace of God into the same negative, interpretative frame. They have no choice. Consistency demands a uniform, interpretive framework for any theological system, including this theory. Since this theory has been built upon the negative reaction of the New Testament writers to The Great Disconnect error, everything in the system, as will be seen, is of necessity also negative and flawed. Proof of this statement is seen in the following interpretation of the two abovementioned Scriptures as the proponents of this theory are allowed to speak for themselves.

Haldane says, "God has shut them up in unbelief under the power of sin, like condemned criminals in prison, without any possibility of escaping, except by means of that salvation which, in his good pleasure, is provided by their deliverance" (RH p. 547). "Paul, in Galatians 3:22, shows that those who are thus shut up in disobedience and sin will never experience the benefit of God’s mercy, and will, consequently, ever remain in  prison and in bondage, unless they become believers in Christ. This contingency (whether men will accept God's mercy or not) is not here in view, but simply God's act itself" (An American Commentary on the New Testament, page 262: Romans).

Godet states, "The term SUGKIEINEIN, to shut up together, applies to a plurality of individuals enclosed in such a way that they have only one exit, through which they are all forced to pass." "But, in our passage, the action is not ascribed to an impersonal subject like Scripture; the subject is God Himself." "The verb can, therefore, only refer to a real act...." "The domain of disobedience within which, God has successively shut them all up, leaves both, in the end only one issue, that of humbly accepting salvation from the hand of mercy" (FG p. 416).

Wuest maintains, "But...the more obvious meaning seems to be that the shutting up was God's doing". "We need not shrink from the plain meaning of the expression, viz., that says, "Scripture in its divine utterances regarding the universality of sin, is spoken of as jailer who shuts all up in sin as a prison" (KW p. 108).

This interpretation of The God-Looked- Down Theory won't wash, however, for at least five reasons: it disregards the work of Satan, it disregards the purpose of God, it disregards the purpose of the Law (wrong grouping), it disregards common sense, and it  disregards the Greek text.

These Popular Interpretations Disregard the Work of Satan

Ezekiel 28 declares that Satan committed the first sin in heaven. Then, he came to earth and deceived Eve, and then Adam into sinning. God had placed the dominion of the earth in Adam's hands. However, by his sin he forfeited it to Satan. First John 5:19 states this truth: "The whole world lieth in the Wicked One." Consequently, Satan, who has dominion over the world, has it cradled in his arms like a baby. He has become the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Sin entered the world primarily because of Satan and secondarily through Adam. "Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world...." (Romans 5:12). "For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners...." (Roman 5:19). Consequently, "sin hath reigned...." (Romans 5:21). Now, sin has dominion (Romans 6:14). Sin caused Paul to do the things he hated because "sin dwelleth in me..." (Romans 7:17), and he stated indwelling sin as his reason: "Now, if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me...." (Romans 7:20). Sin has an attraction to men because "...men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). God doesn't need to shut men up in sin because Satan has already done it. He is the  god of this world system and cradles it, as it were, in his arms. Because of his control, sin has dominion. Why, therefore, is it necessary for God to shut all men up in the very thing that he hates (sin)? Again, why would he do to us the very same thing for which he sent Jesus to die? It is the work of Satan to enclose the human race in sin, not the work of God.

Neither is it the work of God nor the purpose of Scripture to enclose men in unbelief, or disobedience. This, also, is the work of Satan. "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). He blinds the minds of unbelievers to keep them from believing. He also takes the word of God out of the hearts of many who hear it so that they do not believe and be saved. "Those by the wayside are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved" (Luke 8:12). Satan enclosed humanity in both sin and unbelief God does neither. To maintain that God does is to disregard both the works of Satan and the purpose of God. And, just what is the purpose of God?

These Popular Interpretations Disregard the Purpose of God

God's purpose is to redeem the race from the very things The God-Looked- Down Theory says he has locked them into: sin and unbelief. As far back in the past as Eden, God promised a redeemer who would bruise Satan's heel. "...For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8b). Jesus came to destroy the very works of the devil (sin and unbelief) that The God-Looked-Down Theory insists that both God and the Bible had to lock us in before he would save us. Hebrews 2:14b-15 declares that God's purpose is not only to destroy the devil’s works, but to destroy the devil also, "...that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage." God's purpose was to destroy the one who already holds them in bondage and deliver them who have spent their lifetime in his grip. His purpose can be summed up clearly in Colossians 1:13- 14: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." He never said that he delivered us from what he, himself, had locked us into, but he delivered us from the power of darkness which is  Satan's power. It is inconceivable that The God-Looked-Down Theory requires God to enclose the human race in sin and unbelief before he will save them by faith. This interpretation makes the purpose of God and the work of Satan join hands. And embarrassing questions remain! Why is it necessary for God to enclose the human race in the works of Satan before he can save us by faith? Why does The God-Looked-Down Theory require God to do what Satan has already done? Why must it be done over by God? Why is what Satan has done not considered sufficient? Is God so impotent that he is forced to employ Satan's handiwork to aid him in the salvation process when his purpose from Genesis to Revelation, with regard to Satan and his works, is to deliver them who are already enclosed in Satan's sin and unbelief?

These Popular Interpretations Disregard Common Sense

If one admits that sin and unbelief are the works of Satan and that he has already effectively enclosed and locked the human race in them both, then to believe that God locks them in the same thing is equivalent to saying to someone locked in a room, "I am going to lock you in the room," when they are already locked in and you know they are already locked in the room.

To agree that Satan already has the race  locked in sin and unbelief, but that God is only going to keep us locked in until we quit trying to achieve salvation by works and believe in Jesus as our only means of escape, is equivalent to saying to a prisoner serving a life sentence, "I am going to keep you from escaping," when you know he cannot escape anyway.

To reject the fact that sin and unbelief are the works of Satan, and that Satan's works already have the race enclosed in sin and unbelief, is equivalent to accusing God of being the author of sin.

In addition, there is no common-sense connection between God's locking someone in sin and unbelief and his having mercy on them. This is equivalent to saying to someone, "I will lock you in the rain so I can dry you off, while you are still getting soaking wet in the rain." If it is your purpose to dry someone off, you do not lock them in the rain, you enclose them in a dry place. To have mercy on someone, you put them in the place of mercy, not the place of sin and unbelief.

One more point of common sense: To say that God locked man in sin and unbelief to keep him from escaping until he believes on Jesus, is to imply that had God not locked man in sin and unbelief, man could have escaped out of the prisonhouse of sin and unbelief without believing on Jesus. Could he? NO!

To imply that man could have escaped  had God not locked him in is to imply that man could save himself. Can man save his own soul? NO!

And since this implies that man can save himself, man could choose to save himself some way other than Jesus. Is this possible? Can salvation be achieved by someone other than Jesus Christ? NO! Scripture reinforces this in Acts 4:12.

Furthermore, he cannot escape sin and unbelief no matter who enclosed him in it, whether God or Satan. Since man cannot escape sin and unbelief regardless whether God locked him in it or not, then why make such an illogical fuss trying to force the Scripture to fit into an error by stating that God closed man in sin when it doesn't matter anyway? If man is in a condition from which he cannot escape, whether God locked him in it or not, then it is illogical to conclude that God locked him in to keep him from escaping. But, if God didn't "enclose" all men in sin and unbelief, what did he enclose them in? Obviously, he enclosed them in something. But what?

The question now is, "In what did God enclose them?" The answer is to be found both in the verses themselves and in the surrounding contexts. We look first at the context of Romans 11:32. Romans 11:30 says: "For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief." The key word in this verse is “mercy.” Romans 11:31 states,  "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy." The key word in this verse is also mercy. Romans 11:32 states, "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." The key word in this verse is still mercy. Romans 12:1 states, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." The key word in this verse is mercy. What did God enclose all unbelieving men in? He enclosed them in mercy in order that he may show mercy to all unbelievers!

The same principles of interpretation apply also to Galatians 3:22, which states, "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." The expanded interpretation of this verse from the Greek text is, "But shut up the Scripture, all mankind, the ones under sin, in order that the promise, the one of Abraham, by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to the ones believing." "All" is the translation of PANTA, which in this case means all mankind. "Concluded" is the translation of SUGKLEIO, which means "enclosed on all four sides." The phrase "in sin" tells where mankind happened to be when they were enclosed by the Scripture. "In sin" tells where the enclosing took place and not what they were enclosed in. (More on this later.)  Otherwise, we are back to our unscriptural, illogical position of drying someone off in the rain. All sinful mankind have been enclosed on all four sides by the Scripture. The question remaining to be answered is, "In what has the Scripture enclosed sinful mankind?" Both this verse and the entire context of Galatians 3 and 4 leave absolutely no doubt: mankind is enclosed in the Covenant Promises of Abraham. Verse 22 states that the purpose of their enclosure was that the promise "by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to the believing ones." But not just any promise is in view here. The specific promise in verse 22 is the Covenant Promise to Abraham, concerning which, Jesus is the seed, and in which all sinful mankind have been enclosed. The following Scriptures from Galatians 3 and 4 demonstrate this fact. "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7). "...In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Galatians 3:8b). "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham" (Galatians 3:9). "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Galatians 3:14). We have already seen in verses 15, 16, and 17 that the promise is still valid. God gave the inheritance "...to Abraham by promise (Galatians 3:18). "And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according  to promise" (Galatians 3:29). "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Galatians 4:28). All of chapters 3 and 4 of Galatians teach two things: the Covenant Promise to Abraham is still valid and all sinful mankind is enclosed in the same Abrahamic Promise to be appropriated by faith in Christ.

The contexts of Romans 11:32 and Galatians 3:22 scream in defiance of The God-Looked-Down Theory that God did over the devil's work of enclosing all mankind in sin so he could have mercy on them. The God-Looked-Down Theory would have us believe it is sensible to dry people off in the rain. But, worse than this, if Gods' locking all mankind in sin doesn’t make him the author of sin directly, at the very least it makes God responsible for the devastating effects of sin on the human race. Sin is not just a theological cliché. It is a devastating reality. It is not just a passive word we banter about in theological debate. Sin is deadly and aggressive.

Child abuse, wife battering, drug abuse, alcoholism that destroys homes, and hungry little children are all the consequences of sin. The starving masses in Ethiopia, little children in hospitals around the world, their little bodies wracked with pain from disease and death, are all consequences of sin. Murder, rape, war, the Holocaust, lying, hate, and stealing are all consequences of sin. If God has actually locked the human race in sin as  The God-Looked-Down Theory says he has, then he is at least partially responsible for every drunkard, every dope addict, every prostitute, every unfaithful husband, every battered wife, every broken home, all wars, murders, rapes, diseases, hatred, and all things low, foul, base, mean, evil, and Satanic...because The God-Looked- Down Theory would have us accept that God locked the human race in sin. If the followers of this theory would only stop and think, they would realize that they are using the word "sin" as a passive, theological cliché only, and not as a reality. They would understand that sin is deadly and aggressive. Once they see the consequences of their position, to prevent God from being responsible for the results of sin upon the human race, they would interpret Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22; and 3:23.

Finally, to say that God locked all mankind in the prison-house of sin is the same as locking someone up in a diphtheria colony when your purpose is to protect them from the consequences of the disease. Would you, the reader, lock someone you love in a diphtheria colony when your purpose is that of protection rather than harm? No, you would not! Neither did God lock the human race in sin since his purpose is to deliver them from the ravages of sin (John 3:16). A forced re-thinking of the theology of The God-Looked-Down Theory has now become necessary.

These Popular Interpretations Disregard the Greek Text

The preceding discussion shows how The God-Looked-Down Theory views Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22, and 3:23. This theory disregards the works of Satan, the purpose of God, the purpose of the Law, the surrounding contexts, and common sense. But, what about the Greek text? Does the Greek text throw any light on our path? Yes, it does. The Greek text shows the relationship between the expression "in sin and unbelief" and the expression "God and Scripture hath enclosed or concluded." In so doing, the Greek text drives the interpretation of The God-Looked-Down Theory from the field. What, then, is the relationship of "in unbelief" to "God hath concluded, i.e., enclosed"?

In answering this question, we shall do two things. We shall determine the word order of the sentence structure of Romans 11:32. Then we shall compare the structure and word order to two other groups of verses which appear to be identical to Romans 11:32. We shall find that the second group of verses (Verse Group B), although identical to the first group (Verse Group A), contains a very subtle difference that causes the verses in group B to differ radically in meaning from those in group A. We shall also find that Romans 11:32, though identical to the verses in Verse Group A,  belong, in fact, to Verse Group B. What then is the word order or sentence structure of Romans 11:32?

THE WORD ORDER OF ROMANS 11:32

This verse has a very simple structure: subject, verb, direct object, and prepositional phrase. "God" is the subject. "Hath enclosed" is the verb. "Them all" is the direct object. "In unbelief" is the prepositional phrase. "In" is the translation of the Greek preposition EIS. "In unbelief" is in the accusative case. The English translation of Romans 11:32 appears to cause no particular trouble. We simply take it to mean that God used sin or unbelief as a "prisonhouse" within which he enclosed them all. When we compare this verse with the English translations of the verses in Verse Group A, we are strengthened in our conclusion that "in sin-unbelief" became the instrument that God used to enclose them all within.

VERSE GROUP A

The verses in this category are numerous in the Greek New Testament. However, we shall compare Romans 11:32 to only three of them.

(1)"And many spread their garments in the way…” (Mark 11:8). The word order  of this verse is identical to Romans 11:32, containing a subject, verb, direct object, and prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. "Many" is the subject. "Spread" is the verb. "Garments" is the direct object. "In the way" is the prepositional phrase. "In" is the translation of EIS. "In the way" is in the accusative case. We can legitimately infer from both the context, and especially the English translation, that the subject "many" actually strewed the garments "in the way." As a result of this strewing by "many," the "way" became the "containing instrument" of the garments, i.e., the "way" actually "held" or "contained" the garments. Consequently, there is nothing in the English translation of this passage to prevent us from viewing "the way" as the "instrument of containment" for the garments after the "many" "strewed" them there.

Since the structure of this verse is identical to Romans 11:32, can we not also infer that "in unbelief" became the "containing instrument" of God's enclosing in the same respect that "in the way" became the "containing instrument" of the garments that "many strewed"? The answer, on the surface, appears to be yes. And, an analysis of our next verse in Verse Group A seems to strengthen this inference even more.

(2) "And he received him in his arms…” (Luke 2:28).  This verse is also  structured like Romans 11:32. It contains a subject, verb, direct object, and prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. "He" is the subject. "Received" or "took up" is the verb. "Him" is the direct object. "In the (his) arms" is the prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. This verse also appears to be an exact replica of both Romans 11:32 and Mark 11:8. Common sense naturally allows us to infer that his "arms" became the "containing instrument" of "him" as a result of his "taking up."

Since we can easily infer that "the way" became the "containing instrument" for the garments and "his arms" became the “containing instrument” for “him,” can we not also infer that "in unbelief" became the "containing instrument" for God's enclosing? Again, the answer would appear to be yes. A further comparison with Revelation 6:15 seems to add more weight to this conclusion that, yes, we can indeed infer that "in unbelief" is the "containing instrument" of God's enclosing.

(3) "And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains..." (Revelation 6:15). Various categories of "men" is the subject. "Hid" is the verb. “Themselves” is the direct  object. "In the dens" is the prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. This final verse of Group A is also identical in structure to Mark 11:8; Luke 2:28; and Romans 11:32. It contains a subject, verb, direct object, and a prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. From this verse also, we may easily infer that "in the dens" became the "containing instrument" of "themselves" as a result of the men's hiding.

The English translations seem to permit us to infer that the prepositional phrase in all three verses (Mark 11:8; Luke 2:28; Revelation 6:15) became the "containing instrument" of the direct object as a result of the action of the subject expressed by the verb in each verse. Since all three verses Verse Group A are identical in structure to Romans 11:32, it would seem certain that we may also infer that "in unbelief" is the "containing instrument" for God's enclosing. In other words, if "many" used "the way" as an "instrument" to contain "garments," if "men" used "dens" as an "instrument" to contain "themselves," and if "he" used "his arms" to contain "him," then it would seem logical to conclude that God used "unbelief" as a prison-house to contain "men." The above comparisons seem to be the logical justification of The God-Looked-Down Theory in its interpretation of Romans 11:32.

However, before we can accept the above conclusion as valid, we must compare Verse Group A with three more verses listed  in Verse Group B. On the surface these two groups appear to be identical to each other. Group B also has a subject, verb, direct object, and a prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. But, there is a subtle difference between the two groups that creates a radical difference in meaning. The difference is subtle because it is not readily discerned. It is radical because it changes the meaning entirely.

The difference is this: In Verse Group A, the prepositional Phrase describes "where the direct object is" as a result of what the subject of the sentence did to it. But in Verse Group B, the prepositional phrase describes "where the direct object is” before the subject of the sentence does something to it. This distinction becomes clear as we examine three verses in Verse Group B. Group A verses are numerous in the Greek New Testament. Group B verses are not.

VERSE GROUP B

(1) "And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter" (Mark 10:10). Structurally, this verse is a replica of the three verses in Group A. It has a subject, a verb, a direct object, and a prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. "Disciples" is the subject. "Asked" or "questioned' is the verb. "Him" is the direct object. "In the house" is the prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. But, the similarity  stops here. Why? The direct object "him," meaning Jesus, was not "in the house" as a result of the disciples' questioning. He was "in the house" as a result of his own doing. Jesus put himself in the house. In other words, the prepositional phrase "in the house" does not occur as a result of the action performed by the expressed subject of the sentence, i.e., the disciples. "In the house" results from action by one other than the expressed subject. This verse has a subject and verb implied which performed a previous action on the direct object which resulted in the state of rest described by the prepositional phrase "in the house." Jesus is the implied subject and what he did is the implied verb since he was “in the house” as a result of his own doing. And this occurred before his disciples questioned him. Consequently, their questioning him had nothing to do with his being in the house or not. "In the house" simply tells where Jesus was when the questioning occurred and where the questioning was performed.

This verse can be viewed as two sentences combined. Sentence 1: "Jesus put himself in the house." In that condition. in that state of rest, "in the house," Sentence 2 presents itself: "The disciples questioned him." In other words, the disciples questioned him where they found him.

There is a sense in which we can infer that "many" turned the "way" into a “containing instrument” ofr the garments in Mark 11:8.  This can be inferred because "in the way" was the result of what "many" did to the direct object, "the garments." Likewise, there is a sense in which we can infer that "he" turned his "arms" into a "containing instrument" for "him" in Luke 2:28 because "in his arms" described the result of what "he" did to "him," the direct object. There is also a sense in which we can infer that "men" turned the "dens" into a "containing instrument" for "themselves" in Revelation 6:15 because "in the dens" describes the result of what the men did to "themselves." But since Jesus, the direct object in Mark 10:10, was not "in the house" as the direct result of what the disciples did to him, can we still infer that the disciples turned the house into a "containing instrument" for Jesus? Can we infer that the disciples turned the house into any kind of instrument at all? If so, what kind of instrument? Did they turn the house into a "questioning instrument"? What is a questioning instrument? Perhaps they turned the house into a dictionary to enable them to better frame their questions. All that can be said here is that Jesus put himself into a condition of rest "in the house." Then, the disciples performed the act of questioning where they found him. And they found him where he was before their verbal act was performed, which was in the house as a result of his own doing.

 (2) “Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself (John 20:6-7). For our purpose of comparison, we shall reduce these two verses to the following simple form. "Peter seeth the napkin in a place by itself." In this simplified form, this assertion has the identical structural appearance of the three verses in Verse Group A, having a subject, verb, direct object, and prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. "Peter" is the subject. "Seeth" is the verb. "Napkin" is the direct object. "In a place" ia the prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. But, like Mark 10:10, the similarity stops with the comparison of the structure since this verse has an implied subject performing an implied action on the napkin before Peter ever laid eyes on it. One simple question brings the proper focus. Was the napkin "in a separate place" as a result of those who buried Jesus' body having placed it there or because of Peter's seeing it? The answer is obvious. The napkin was "in a separate place" because those who buried Jesus placed it there and not Peter's act of seeing.

Since Peter did not place the napkin "in a separate place" by his action of "seeing," is there any way in which we can infer that he turned “place” into a “containing instrument”?  Could he turn "place" into a "seeing instrument"? Perhaps Peter turned "place" into a large pair of "bifocals" to enable him to see better!

We can understand this verse better if we view it as two separate sentences joined together; yet, which contain two subjects doing two separate actions to one direct object. In other words, those who buried Jesus' body placed the napkin "in a place." Then Peter performed his action of "seeing" the napkin where they left it. "In a place" simply tells us where Peter's "seeing" took place. We cannot logically conclude that Peter's "seeing" turned "place" into any kind of "instrument" at all, including a giant pair of "bifocals."

(3) "Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also" (2 Corinthians 8:6). The basic elements of subject, verb, a direct object, and a prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case are present here. "Titus" is the subject. "Should finish" is the verb. "Grace" is the direct object. "In you" is the prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. On the surface, this verse appears to be a replica of those verses in Verse Group A. Actually, it differs radically from Verse Group A since this verse also has two subjects and two verbs (one subject and verb are expressed in the verse itself while the other subject and verb are implied) but  only one direct object. One simple question frames it for our understanding. Was "grace" in the believers at Corinth because of Titus or was "grace" in the Corinthian believers because of the work of the Holy Spirit? Titus can teach and preach but he cannot place the grace of God in the heart of any man. Neither can anyone else. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.

When we view this verse as two separate, complete sentences, the meaning becomes crystal clear. The Holy Spirit placed the grace of God in the Corinthian believers. As a result of this, Titus should finish this same grace where the Holy Spirit had placed it, i.e., "in them."

The only way we could infer from the above that Titus turned the Corinthian Christians into a "containing instrument" for "grace" is to rewrite the verse, making Titus the one who placed the "grace" in them rather than the Holy Spirit. But, as is, can we logically infer that the believers at Corinth became any kind of "instrument" for Titus' action of "finishing"? If so, what kind of instrument? Could he turn them into a "finishing instrument"? What is a "finishing instrument"? How does any man, Titus included, mature, develop, or finish grace in a believer? We normally think that "growing in grace" involves prayer, reading the Bible, and listening to sermons. Perhaps Titus turned the Corinthians into “sermons” to enable him to “finish in you this same grace also.”  Maybe he turned them into "sermon instruments" to function as his "finishing instruments."

From the above comparison of the two verse groups, some observations can be made. Verse Group B can be interpreted properly only when viewed as two separate sentences. Verse Group A has the subject and verb expressed in the sentence itself. The direct object in this group enters the state of rest designated by the prepositional phrase as a direct result of the verbal action of the expressed subject. In verse Group B, the direct object is already in the state of rest described by the prepositional phrase. This is not the direct result of the verbal action of the subject expressed in the sentence but of the implied action by the implied subject. To view Group B otherwise is to attribute the action necessary to produce the state of rest described by the prepositional phrase to the expressed subject of the sentence. This is by no means the case in Verse Group B. This would have us conclude that the disciples placed Jesus in the house, that Peter placed the napkin in a separate place, and have Titus doing the work of the Holy Spirit in placing the grace of God in the Christians at Corinth. Obviously this is not the case.

The verses in Group B are really two separate statements combined into one, with each separate statement having different subjects and different verbs, but both statements maintain the same direct object.  However, both statements relate to that same direct object in different ways. One relates to the direct object as causing the state of rest described by the prepositional phrase, the other relates to the direct object as a result of a previously caused state of rest described by the prepositional phrase. In Mark 10:10; John 20:6-7; and 2 Corinthians 8:6, the direct object is in the state of rest (designated by the prepositional phrase) caused by the implied subject. It is important to note that the state of rest, designated by the prepositional phrase and caused by the implied subject, is in existence prior to the action of the expressed verb in the sentence. Since the state of rest of the direct object (designated by the prepositional phrase) is existing prior to the action of the expressed verb upon the direct object, we can readily understand that the expressed subject did not cause the state of rest. Instead, it reacted to a state of rest caused by one other than itself. In other words, the expressed subject acts upon the direct object as a result of what the implied subject previously did to it. Consequently, the verses in Group B simply mean that "as a result of the state of rest of the direct object previously caused by the implied subject, and designated by the prepositional phrase, the expressed subject carries out the expressed verbal act with reference to the same direct object."

The application of the preceding analysis to the individual verses of Group B clarifies  the meanings of those verses much better than our present English translations do. Note the following clarifications:

Mark 10:10 ("As-a-result-of-the-factthat) Jesus placed himself in the house, the disciples questioned him in the house."

John 20:6-7 ("As-a-result-of-the-factthat) the ones who buried Jesus placed the napkin in a separate place. Peter saw it there."

2 Corinthians 8:6 ("As-a-result-of-thefact- that) the Holy Spirit had placed the grace of God in the Corinthian Christians, Titus should finish this same grace in them.”

When the direct object is in a state of rest designated by a prepositional phrase, using EIS in the accusative, and caused by other than the subject of the expressed verb in the sentence, the preposition EIS should be translated "as a result of." Turner (M III p. 266) and Dana and Mantry (DM p. 103) say it can be translated "because of." This also is sufficient.

Romans 11:32 has the same structure as Group B, that is, a subject, verb, direct object, and prepositional phrase using EIS in the accusative case. "God" is the subject. "Hath enclosed" is the verb. "Them all" (meaning both Jews and Gentiles) is the direct object. "In unbelief" is the prepositional phrase using EIS in the  accusative case.

Did God or Satan place man in the state or condition of unbelief? God did not. If one maintains that he did, then God is the author of unbelief. Very few theologians are willing to make this assertion for obvious reasons. Therefore, Romans 11:32 belongs to Group B and should be structured as two sentences. We have demonstrated that Satan placed all men in unbelief. As a result of this fact, God enclosed them all. But for the reasons given in the analysis above, we cannot infer that "unbelief" became God's "enclosing instrument" or "prison-house" as The God-Looked-Down Theory would have us believe. To view "unbelief" as God’s “enclosing instrument” would require us to view "place" as a bifocal, "house" as a dictionary, and the "Corinthian Christians" as sermons.

All that can be said of the verses in Group B is that the expressed subject in each sentence carried out the expressed verbal actions where they found the direct objects as a result of where the implied subjects placed them and left them.

The following "expanded translation" gives the proper interpretation of Romans 11:32. ("As-a-result-of-the-fact-that) Satan plunged them all into the helpless, hopeless condition of unbelief, God hath enclosed them all in his great mercy."

The forgoing analysis of the Group B verses prevents us from inferring that the  prepositional phrase, using EIS in the accusative case, can be interpreted as a containing instrument. Neither can we infer that the prepositional phrase is "anykind- of-instrument" at all. "Place" is not a bifocal." "House" is not a dictionary. "You" is not a sermon. "Unbelief" is not a prison.

The God-Looked-Down Theory is tainted throughout and should be discarded. This is so since no theological system deliberately separating itself from the Abrahamic Covenant can be trusted. No theological system can be relied upon which does not give the Abrahamic- (BARAK-EULOGIA)-Sixty Promises- Covenant Structure its proper place. The God-Looked-Down Theory does not. Since the Law, according to this theory is not a positive act of God's grace, but is a negative, damning, wrath, guilt, death, yoke, bondage, prison-house instrument, any relationship between mankind and the Law must necessarily be a negative relationship. Then, to be consistent, this same negative mindset must color everything else in their interpretive system. So this negativism, based on their fuzzy, confused view of the purpose of the Law, is transferred to Romans 11:32 and Galatians 3:22. The followers of this negative, flawed theology are absolutely unable to see that God enclosed the human race in his mercy and in Abraham's promises.

In Volume III, we demonstrate more fully The Unbroken Force of Abraham’s  Blessings, and in Volume IV, show how to appropriate the Abrahamic EULOGIA of health and wealth.

Copyright 1996 - 2007
Date Last Updated: February 26, 2008
PO Box 59  ¦  Livingston, TX  ¦  77351
936-327-3676
http://jaysnell.org