[Will Kinney]

Romans 3:25 "remission of sins that are past"

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

What is your Final Authority? Do you believe the promises of God to give us a Book containing all His inspired and inerrant words, or do you believe, as most Christians today, that there is no inerrant Bible in any language? Is your Final Authority the King James Holy Bible, or is it A Lexicon, another commentator or your own understanding?

There are many today who heap fulsome praise on that old Book telling us how wonderful it is, but then they add that its "archaic" language needs to be updated, and various "errors" and "mistranslations" corrected. Most Updaters and Bible Correctors will start out with a list that includes such words as "letteth", "conversation", and "prevent", but soon reveal their desire to be their own Final Authority (and your's as well) when they come right out and tell us the King James translators dropped the ball when translating several Greek or Hebrew words like "brass", "unicorns", "Easter", "damnation", or the two examples we will look at in this little study, "for the REMISSION of sins" (Romans 3:25) and "I ALLOW not" in Romans 7:15.

One such Christian brother who "prefers" the King James Bible over the modern versions, yet apparently does not consider it to be the inerrant words of God, wrote to me with these two examples of "error" and difficulty in the old Book.

He writes: Hello Will, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for THE REMISSION of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:23-26 (King James Bible)

He then includes a reference to a certain Greek Lexicon by Thayer - "paresis, Thayer Definition:1) passing over, letting pass, neglecting, disregarding." Then he asks: "How would you have translated the word remission in the Romans passage? This is the only time the word paresis is translated into the English word remission. I am not a Greek scholar or anything like that, but it seems to me that remission is a different word than what Paul actually used. "Passing over" and "release from bondage" are two different things. There is remission of sins for the child of God. But is this what Paul meant here in this sentence? It's translational "errors" like this one that those who do not trust the KJV point out to us who do. Is it not to our advantage to be aware and ready with a solid and TRUE answer?" - Chris

Notice first that brother Chris got the idea that the King James Bible is in error because he saw another definition of the word in a lexicon. Aren't people funny? Lexicons, commentaries and scholars are not inspired and they frequently disagree with one another, yet instead of believing The Bible, this brother has lost his faith in an inerrant Book by believing what some guy wrote in a lexicon.

Brother Chris did not provide us with all that is found in Thayer's lexicon, and why Thayer, (who himself denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ), thought that "HAD PASSED OVER the sins that were previously committed" was the correct way to translate this passage. Thayer actually goes on to say: "passing over, neglecting, disregarding - because God had patiently let pass the sins committed previously to the expiatory death of Christ, i.e. HAD TOLERATED, HAD NOT PUNISHED, and so man's conception of his holiness was in danger of becoming dim, if not extinct." (Caps are mine)

Is what Thayer thought about God having neglected, tolerated, and not punished sins Biblically correct? Definitely not, as we shall soon see.

Lexicons and commentaries are not the inspired words of God. Only the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. Most lexicons are written by men who do not believe any Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, and they often employ pagan and secular usages in defining Biblical words. They also happen to frequently disagree with each other.

Chris mentioned Thayer's lexicon, but according to other lexicons, a legitimate meaning of the word paresis is "remission" of sins. Liddell and Scott's huge Greek-English lexicon, on page 1337 says of the word paresis - " 1. a letting go, a dismissal, a release; 2. a slackening of strength; 3. "REMISSION of debts", and then it specifically lists Romans 3:35 as a reference.

In Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabularly of the Greek New Testament, under the word paresis listed on page 493, they give three citations from early Greek writers where the meaning of this word is "the remission, or forgiving of a debt".

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament - "For the remission of sins. Margin, Passing over. The word here used (paresin) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means passing by, as not noticing; and hence FORGIVING. A similar idea occurs in Micah 7:18: "Who is a God like unto thee, that passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance?" IN ROMANS IT MEANS FOR THE PARDONING, OR IN ORDER TO PARDON PAST TRANSGRESSION." (Caps are mine)

Not only does the King James Bible translate this word in Romans 3:25 as the "remission" of sins, but so also do Wycliffe 1395, the Italian Diodati (per la remission de' peccati),the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 (para la remisión de los pecados pasados) ,the Douay-Rheims, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Wesley's 1755 translation, Webster's 1833, and the Third Millenium Bible. Versions such as Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops's Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible of 1599 give the same sense to the passage as does the King James Bible by translating this as "for the FORGIVENESS of sins that are past".

The Modern Greek version agrees with the meaning of the King James Bible and reads "for the FORGIVENESS of sins that are past" - "dia TEN AFESIN twn rogenomenwn amarthmatwn".

Many Bible commentators tell us that Romans 3:25 refers to THE REMISSION OF SINS that are past, including John Gill, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, John Wesley, Barnes, and Matthew Henry.

John Gill states: "for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God - by "sins that are past", are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for THE REMISSION OF ALL HIS PEOPLE'S SINS, past, present, and to come; yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed."

The Bible itself is its own best commentary. Hebrews 9:15 reaffirms the truth that the death of Christ was the legal basis for God having forgiven the sins of the Old Testament saints - "And for this cause he (Jesus Christ) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redepmtion of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

Some modern versions like the NKJV say: "whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God HAD PASSED OVER the sins that were previously committed."

I believe the NKJV translation, and others of a similar nature - "had passed over" (NKJV, NASB, ESV, Holman), "overlooked" (NEB), "left unpunished" (NIV) miss the meaning of the passage, and create a direct contradiction to the rest of Scripture.

God very definitely FORGAVE sins many times in the Old Testament, and He certainly PUNISHED His people for their sins; but the legal basis for His having forgiven or remitted the sins of His people in the Old Testament times was the future and predicted death of Christ on the cross of Calvary; He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). The death of Christ satisfies the legal requirements of His having remitted and forgiven the sins of the O.T. saints. The blood of Christ declares the righteousness of God in forgiving sins, both in Old Testament times and now in the New.

Punishment - "You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therfore I will punish you for all your iniquities." Amos 3:2. "And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins...if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity, Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob" Leviticus 26:18,41. "And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity" Ezekiel 14:10. "And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this" Ezra 9:13. See also Jeremiah 11:22; 13:21; 21:14, Hosea 4:9; 12:2; Amos 2:4,6; and Zechariah 9:14.

Forgiveness of sins - "Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" Exodus 34:7; "Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word." Numbers 14:19-20; "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered" Psalm 32:1; "But he being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity" Psalm 78:38; "Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin." Psalm 85:2. See numerous other verses also, such as 1 Kings 8:30, 34; and Psalm 103:3.

Those versions that tell us God "passed over" the sins of the Old Testament saints and did not punish them create a very definite contradiction with the rest of the Scripture. God often PUNISHED His people for their sins, and He also certainly FORGAVE them as well. The King James Bible is right and many modern versions are wrong.

Will Kinney

[Will Kinney]

Romans 7:15 "For that which I do I allow not"

Another word in the King James Bible that is frequently criticized as being an erroneous translation is found in Romans 7:15 where we read: "For that which I do I ALLOW NOT: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

The Bible critics tell us the Greek words "ou ginosko" should be translated as "I KNOW not" or "I do not UNDERSTAND". The NKJV, NASB, NIV say: "For what I am doing, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do." Several other versions say: "For what I do, I KNOW not."

First of all, it is readily admitted that the verb "ginosko" usually means "to know", but as with most words in English and in Greek or Hebrew, single words can have a multiplicity of meanings depending on the varying contexts. Not only is the King James Bible reading of "that which I do I allow not" not an error, but it is far more accurate and does not create a contradiction.

Other Bible translations both foreign and English, as well as some commentators and lexicons agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible of Romans 7:15. Liddell and Scott's unabridged Greek- English lexicon, and the abridged edition of 1887 both tell us that the Greek verb ginosko can have the meaning of "to determine, to decree that, or to decide upon".

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament comments on Romans 7:15: "I allow not. I do not approve; I do not wish it; the prevailing bent of my inclinations and purposes is against it. Greek, "I know not." See the margin. The word know, however, is sometimes used in the sense of approving. Revelation 2:24, "Which have not known [approved] the depths of Satan." Compare Psalms 101:4, "I will not know a wicked person." Jeremiah 1:5. "

John Gill comments: For that which I do, I allow not…"The apostle having cleared the law from the charge of being the cause either of sin or death, and taken the blame to himself, proceeds to give an account of the struggle and combat he found in himself between the flesh and spirit; "that which I do, I allow not". That which he did was evil, since he allowed not of it; but this is to be understood not of any notorious crime committed by him, nor of a sinful course of life... but of internal lusts, the workings of corruptions in his heart, and which are real actions of the mind, together with the various frailties and infirmities of life: when that apostle says that what he did, (ginwskw) , "I know not": his meaning is, not that he was utterly ignorant of them, of their nature and operations; that he was insensible of their motions, and unconcerned about them; for his sense of them, and concern for them, are expressed by him in the strongest terms, "I know", "I find", "I see", "O wretched man"… (Romans 7:18,21,23,24) ... rather, "I do not approve" of them, I dislike, abhor, and detest them; I cannot excuse or palliate them, but must condemn them; so words of knowledge in the Hebrew language are expressive of love, liking, and approbation; see (Psalms 1:6) (Hosea 8:4) (Genesis 18:19) ; on which last text, "I know him", says Jarchi, "it is the language of love", or a phrase expressive of strong affection; and so here, I know not, I do not like, love, and approve of these things, or I do not "allow" of them, and indulge myself in them, I loathe them and myself for them."

Adam Clarke comments: " What I am continually labouring at I allow not, ou ginwskw, I do not acknowledge to be right, just, holy, or profitable."

Agreeing with the King James Bible reading of "For that which I do I ALLOW NOT" are the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Mace's 1729 translation, Webster's 1833 translation, the Italian Riveduta 1927 (Perché io NON APPROVO quello che faccio).

Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible, based on the Alexandrian texts like the NASB, NIV, agrees with the meaning found in the King James Bible saying: "For, that which I am working out, I DO NOT APPROVE, - for not, what I wish, the same I practise, but, what I hate, the same I do."

John Wesley's 1755 translation agrees with the KJB meaning: "For that which I do I APPROVE NOT; for what I would, I do not, but what I hate, that I do.

Darby's 1870 translation is similar to the KJB with: "For that which I do, I DO NOT OWN; for not what I will, this I do; but what I hate, this I practise."

Young's 'literal" translation has: "for that which I work, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE; for not what I will, this I practise, but what I hate, this I do." To "acknowledge" here means to admit or approve of something.

The translations like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and others that translate this phrase as "that which I do I DO NOT UNDERSTAND" (or KNOW) again miss the point and create a contradiction in the context of Romans chapter Seven. Paul clearly 'KNEW" and "understood" what was happening to him and why. He explains it in great detail saying such things as: "For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin"; "now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not...it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Romans 7:14-23.

Again, the King James Bible is right and many modern versions are wrong. If those who profess to believe in the promises of God to preserve His inspired and inerrant words in a Book here on this earth, and believe that God has providentially given us the best Hebrew and Greek texts in the King James Bible, then they should be consistent in their faith. God not only directed the King James Bible translators in their selection of the correct underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, but also in the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of those texts.

It is the King James Bible that is the Final Written Authority, not the lexicons, the commentators, and certainly not your own personal opinions and preferences, or mine.

Will Kinney

Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Couple of things,

In the sense of Revelation 13:8 is not Jesus the Lamb slain from the begining and not the future?

And when you say OT saints, are these supposed saints part of the church?

Do you reckon that the church is not an age but the purpose?

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Scott Simons

Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Couple of things,

In the sense of Revelation 13:8 is not Jesus the Lamb slain from the begining and not the future?

Hi Scott. Yes, very definitely. In God's eternal purpose, Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

And when you say OT saints, are these supposed saints part of the church?

Do you reckon that the church is not an age but the purpose?

That is a question about which Christians have very different views. I do not care to argue about it (so please don't try to get me into a debate over it), but my understanding is that the church is made up of the redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, from Adam all the way to the last saint converted before the return of Christ in glory.

See Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12.

All of grace, Accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6)

Will K

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

...my understanding is that the church is made up of the redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, from Adam all the way to the last saint converted before the return of Christ in glory.

See Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12.

All of grace, Accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6)

Will K

Amen brother!

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hi Scott. Yes, very definitely. In God's eternal purpose, Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

See Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12.

All of grace, Accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6)

Will K

Very well said, I would have to totally agree. Thank you always for you insightful studies.