In Romans 5:20, the apostle Paul uses a word which he used only one other time in his epistles.  That word is παρεισῆλθε.  it means to slip in, come in as a side issue, sneak in. Paul uses the same word again in Galatians 2:4.  Since the word παρεισῆλθεν occurs only twice in the Bible, one would think that translating these two verses into English would present no problem for the translators.

​

But there is a problem. It is a grammatical-semantic one. The question is: How does one express an abstract concept in contrast to a specie in the Greek language? In other words, do the subjects of the verb παρεισῆλθεν represent an abstraction or a specie, that is, something that has a material existence. 

 

Now Greek scholars Arndt and Gingrich point out in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament that the subject of the verb παρεισῆλθεν in Romans 5:20  is ‘law,’ a KIND OF “law which has no primary place in the Divine Plan.”  Now what kind of law was it that had “no primary place in the Divine Place”?  The answer is: A kind of law which has no material existence, that is, law as an abstraction.

 

Whereas the subject of Romans 5:20 represents an abstraction, the subject in the Galatians 2:4 represents an object that has a material existence, specifically, ‘false believers.’ In each cases, what slipped in, came in, or sneaked in, had “no primary place in the Divine Plan.” In the mind off the writene was an abstraction, the other material.

 

In Galatians 2:4, where the subject of παρεισῆλθεν is ‘false believers,’ the subject is punctuation by the Greek article τοὺς.  By adding the article τοὺς, the apostle is identifying a specific group which “slipped or sneaked in with unworthy motives,” namely, false believers.  “As false brothers, they had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.”

​

However, in Romans 5:20 the article before νόμοs is absent. And it is absent for a reason.  In this regard, Greek scholar James Moulton points out, "for exegesis, there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object."  

 

Accordingly, if the intent of Paul was to conveyed the "qualities" of νόμος, then his absenting the article was obligatory.  In the words of Greek scholars Dana and Mantey, “When identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality of character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous.”

 

Now the grammatical question that begs for an answer is: Why did the translators of Romans 5:20 canceled the grammatical rule which states: “Where the Greek article does not appear, the definite article should not be inserted in the English translation.” Ignoring the rule, the definite article was inserted before νόμος in each of the following translations with the exception of the NLV which substituted “God’s law” for “the Law.”

 

ISV:  νόμος παρεισῆλθεν = the Law crept in

NAS  νόμος παρεισῆλθεν  = The Law came in 

CEV  νόμος παρεισῆλθεν  = The Law came

NIV   νόμος παρεισῆλθεν  = The Law was brought in

NLV  νόμος παρεισῆλθεν  = God’s law was given

NKJV νόμος παρεισῆλθεν = the law entered 

WEB. νόμος παρεισῆλθεν  = The law came in 

 

They all failed to ask: Why does the subject of παρεισῆλθεν in Galatians 2:4, namely, ψευδαδέλφους, ‘false brothers’  have an article whereas the article is absent before νόμος, the subject in Romans 5:20?  In addition, they failed to ask: What KIND OF law exists “which has no primary place in the Divine Plan”?  It certainly could not be the Law of Moses. The Mosaic Law did not “sneak in.”  In fact, it  had a “primary place in the Divine Plan.”

 

Yet, because these translators failed to comprehend the KIND OF law the apostle was referring to, the majority of these translators assumed it had to be a codified law, specifically the Law of Moses. The idea that culture was a KIND OF law simply did not make sense.  They weren’t anthropologists.  The only KIND OF law they were familiar with was a codified law.

 

For example, the vast majority of Bible expositors interpret νόμος absent the article as the Mosaic Law.  They include Biblical scholars like Douglas Moo who states: “the ananthrous νόμος [aka νόμος absent the article] but clearly the Mosaic Law”; expositor H. Moule asserts that what “came in” was “articulated at Sinai;” expositor John Murray affirms it was “the law, as revealed by Moses;” and F. L. Godet, “νόμος (the) law, undoubtedly denotes the Mosaic law.” 

 

In contrast, Charles Hodge interpreted νόμος absent the article as: “The  law stands here for the whole of the Old Testament economy, including the clear revelation of the moral law, and all the institutions connected with the former dispensation.”  For Hodge, νόμος specifically stands for a Jewish cultural life-way with all its customs, institutions, values, and principle for living.  He gives νόμος an identity. 

 

Then there is Greek scholar and expositor R. C. Lenski who was aware of the  problem.  He notes that νόμος as it occurs without the article in Romans 5:20 “should not be conceived as being a mere set of formulated decrees, a code, but as a power that affects something [people].”  From an anthropological-linguistic perspective that unknown power is here proposed to be the power of Culture as Law.

 

Paul was not focusing on the identity of a codified law, but rather as an abstract object which exhibited the qualities of law, qualities like rules, rights, duties, values, commandments, traditions, and social structures. 

 

By focusing on the identity of νόμος rather than on existence of an abstract KIND OF νόμος which also exhibited the qualities of law, they failed to identify that ubiquitous, ever-present power which would multiply wrong doing, cultural diversity, and chaos in the world.  To my knowledge, no one has identified that power. Both Hodge and Lenski come close.

 

This means each society has given voice to its own uncodified set of rules, obligations, values, rights, social structures, ceremonies, and customs to which it expects its members to give their allegiance.   For example, the Chácobo, who had no codified law, nevertheless submitted themselves to a law they called “noba jabi,” ‘our ascribed way of doing things.’  Many of these rules and customs were clearly in fundamental opposition to what the Bible taught. 

 

Now in Romans 5, the apostle Paul was pointing out to the believers at Rome an interesting spiritual phenomenon. Historically, between Adam and Christ there “sneaked into history”  diverse cultural law-ways for doing things, cultural law-ways like that of the Chácobo as well as thousands of Bibleless people groups filling the earth. These divergent cultural law-ways of doing things we call “cultural diversity." According to the apostle Paul, “they sneaked into history and had no place in the Divine Plan.

 

Regrettably, failure on the part of scholars to recognize that "an object of thought [i.e. noun] may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality” (Dana, H. E. and Julius R.Mantey 1950. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament),  each of the above translators failed recognize that the quality of this abstract object was signaled by absence of the article.  Ignoring its absence, they gave νόμος absent the article an identity, either as “the Law,” “God’s law”, or as “the law.”  It was a serious mistranslation.  

 

In this regard, Greek scholar James Hope Moulton points out that "for exegesis, there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object." Accordingly, if the intent of Paul was to convey the abstract "qualities" of νόμος, then his absenting the article before νόμος was obligatory.

 

In this regard, almost 100 years ago, Arthur Slaten wrote:

"Recognition of the qualitative usage of nouns [signaled by absence of article] is of extreme importance in the translation and interpretation of the New Testament. That the significance of this usage is not generally recognized is apparent not only in many renderings of the Revised Version, but even in critical commentaries upon the Greek text and in the standard grammars of the New Testament.”

​

Because there exists no other way to speak of law as an abstraction in the Greek language, I wholeheartedly agree. “The reason then for the insertion or omission of the article will not be evident, unless we look at the matter from the same point of view as that in which the writer regarded it.” The writer, in this case, was informing his readers how cultural diversity crept into history and multiplied wrong doing. 

 

Unfortunately, as Slaten pointed out, Bible scholars, Bible translators, and theologians, with a few exceptions, tend to gloss over the fact that absence of the article before νόμος actually carries with it semantic content, namely, the intrinsic qualities of LAW-ness. If concepts like customs, rules, values, traditions, commandments, and kinship systems did not exhibit intrinsic qualities of LAW-ness, there could be no abstract super-category called “law.” One would not be able to distinguish between which kinds of behavior were "lawless" and which kinds were “lawful."

 

So instead of revealing the existence of an abstract  power, namely the power of culture, whose law-like “qualities” have caused the societies of the world to multiply the cultural ways sinful man could diverge from God’s Truth which is fixed and constant.

 

Now how was it possible, we must ask, for these translators to conceive of νόμος absent the article as some kind of codified law”?  They no doubt found it difficult to believe there actually existed a law which was not codified, namely culture. They weren’t thinking as anthropologists. 

 

Having the personal translation task of packaging form and meaning-content correctly, I concluded that the two words in Romans 5:20, νόμος and παρεισῆλθεν, had not been packaged correctly in our English translations. A more accurate translation, one which would  provide the view point of the writer, would be: Diverse cultural ways of doings things sneaked into history, ways which did not accord with God’s Plan.  The result? The multiplication of wrong dong. 

​

Convictions

1. Instead of viewing cultural diversity and multiculturalism as deviant law-ways which are in fundamental opposition to the Divine Plan, there are missiologists who insists that a diversity of law systems and cultural forms is central to the Divine Plan. Anyone attempting to help a society return to cultural forms common to all to which there are attached Divine Meanings, meanings which are fixed and constant,  will be, according to one missiologist, guilty of "distorting the diversity of God’s creation. ...forcing upon people our standards" (Sherwood Lingenfelter).

2. Intentional absenting of the Greek article before νόμος clearly informed me that it was neither codified Roman law, nor the Law of Moses, nor “God’s Law” that "sneaked into history.” What "sneaked in" were diverse cultural law-systems, new value systems, new meanings attached to concepts common to all, and new ways classifying sense perceptions.  These new ways of doing things “had no place in the Divine Plan." 

3. If one is to understand what happens when a society rejects 'the law of God in their inner being" (Romans 7:22) and choses to go "its own way" (Acts 14:16), then it is important for every Bible translator and missiologist to understand why the apostle Paul intentionally absented the Greek article before νόμος (law) in Romans 5:20.

4. The phenomenon of new law-ways secretly creeping into history has not ended.  Forms presently sneaking in are called The New World Order, The Coming Reset, Reimagining Policing, Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, Transgender Equality, and Critical Race Theory.  Wrong doing and chaos are rapidly “multiplying.”

5. The Good News is: Regardless of the fact that as new law-ways of doing things keep creeping into history and cause “people to sin more and more, God’s wonderful grace becomes more abundant” (NLT).

​

Gilbert Prost

December, 2020