Issues to Be Debated

2Co 5:17-21

1. There are three uses of καταλλασσω in this pericope: 1) An aorist to assert the accomplished reconciliation in new creatures in Christ; 2) an imperfect to describe God’s activity in ongoing reconciling since the fall into sin till the present; and 3) an aorist imperative by which ambassadors of Christ express the urgency of the need for reconciliation.
2. The verb in v19 is either:
   1. Impf of copulative plus pres participle, expressing that God was active in reconciling the world to himself during the whole time that God was in Christ (essentially, during all history/eternity), OR
   2. Impf periphrastic which with some emphasis points to an act beginning in the past but continuing until something in context indicates the end—and since God is eternal, no end.
   3. I prefer: “God has been reconciling the world to himself, not charging up their sins … “, that is, through the message/ministers of reconciliation, who are still active, God has been active in reconciling the people of this world to himself. Unfortunately, “you weren’t willing” applies to so many.
3. It is clearly incorrect to assert on the basis of this passage “God was reconciled” (passive) or “God reconciled the world” (aorist).

Romans 5:18-19 

1. This pericope is presenting a contrast between Adam, who brought sin into the world and Christ, the triumphant sin-bearer.
2. Definitions: οἱ πολλοί – the many (lots of people); εἰς – 1) “results in;” 2) dative of (dis)advantage, i.e., “for the benefit/detriment”; 3) δικαίωσιs – a gerund = “the justifying” [see above under Ro 4] δικαιώμα – defined in this context in v19 by the synonymous parallelism with ὑπακοῆς (obedience); I.e. the whole life of Christ is characterized as an act of obedience or an act of righteousness. 
3. The key statements are: 
   1. Thus through one an act of righteousness (δικαίωμα) results in (εἰς, 1st meaning) the process of justifying (δικαίωσιs) that brings life for (εἰς, 2nd meaning) all men.
   2. so also through the act of obedience (ὑπακοῆς) of the one man lots of people (οἱ πολλοί) will be made righteous.
4. Note: “The righteousness that brings life” is “for (the benefit of) all men,” NOT “to” all men.”

Romans 3:22-25

1. These verses are the first part of the Greek sentence that is 66 words long. In English such a long sentence must be broken up, but it is crucial where a person puts punctuation, esp. full stop punctuation. The issue is: How does διὰ πίστεως ἐν  τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι fit into this sentence?
2. “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement” is an adjectival relative clause modifying “Jesus Christ.”
3. When end punctuation is put after “Jesus Christ,” it produces the erroneous consequence that διὰ πίστεως (through faith) must modify one of the words in the clause (“God … atonement”). διὰ πίστεως ἐν  τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι states that something is brought about “through faith.” Faith certainly does not change “God” or “him (Christ).” Nor does faith modify the verb “presents” or the “sacrifice of atonement.” ἐν regularly indicates the object of faith, so the grammatical object is not the ἱλαστήριον.
4. So how does διὰ πίστεως fit into this sentence? It is attached through the preposition to δικαιούμενοι (“being justified” as a participle, or “are justified,” if an ἐστιν is inserted). In this way it becomes the fourth general principle in a detailed statement about justification. Let’s put it this way: All … are justified 1) free of charge, 2) because of God’s grace, 3) though the redemption in Christ Jesus (the ἱλαστήριον), 4) through faith in his blood. (A period is appropriate at this point. (This is the way the sentence is used in the Confessions.) The Greek sentence continues, as it references all sin, past and present, which God addresses as the one “who is just and the one who justifies the sinner.” (End of the Greek sentence.)
5. So this is a comprehensive description of the principles of justification, placed between the assertion that justification by faith is taught in the OT and the conclusion that “A man is justified through faith without the deeds of the law” v28. 

DISCURSUS:

 As I have addressed the four main (most used) passages (14 more are coming), I note that it seems to me that there are two issues that are involved is the etiology of UOJ: 

1. The German has no forms to differentiate between the mere assertion, the progressive or the emphatic. (E.g. Ich trage can mean: I carry, or I am carrying, or I do carry – ich trug = I carried, I was carrying, I did carry; etc.) Therefore Luther translated the imperfect of 1Co 5:19 as a past tense and still understood it as a progressive.  At least, he certainly did not use the passage to support a locus for UOJ.
       It seems as English dominated more and more in the USA, the dialect of the German-Americans led them to use the German past tense like the English past tense. When they cited Luther, they did not pick up the nuance and his past tense form was progressive. This is very apparent in the translations of the theologians of the 19th Century. Actually the issue is sometimes evident in the theologians themselves.
2. Since presenters of UOJ can with a false premise change a HG-inspired pronoun, which has a clear and unequivocal antecedent, it is not surprising when quotations from ‘the fathers’ are quoted without clearly indicating the antecedent. This happens in quotes from the Bible, from the church fathers, in quotes from Luther and in quotes from the dogmaticians of the late 16th Century.