Romans 3:28 - What is Paul Denying?

[RAdam]

It's amazing to me that anyone would suggest that first century Jews weren't under a works righteousness system. That's exactly what the scripture says they were under. That's exactly what Paul said they were under. They truly believed that if they kept the law they would be righteous before God. Paul believed this before God changed his heart in Acts 9. They sought righteousness, not by faith, but by the works of the law. That is why they didn't attain to the law of righteousness. They stumbled at the stumblingstone.

The problem is obvious, the law cannot justify sinners, it can only condemn them. As many as are of that system are under the curse. The only way a child of God can feel peace with God is through faith. The thing the Jews missed is the law was always intended by God to be a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith, not by the law.

 

[Andre]

It's amazing to me that anyone would suggest that first century Jews weren't under a works righteousness system. That's exactly what the scripture says they were under. That's exactly what Paul said they were under. They truly believed that if they kept the law they would be righteous before God.

I have never denied that the Jews were under a works righteousness system - you should know that if you have been reading my posts. I have denied that they were under a good works righteousness system. There is a big difference. Now what this difference is may not be clear to you unless you have read the whole thread.

Please look at post number 38, if not others.

 

[Andre]

They truly believed that if they kept the law they would be righteous before God.

Can you support this assertion with some actual texts, bearing in mind the possibility that Jew could have believed that the Law of Moses was to kept out of gratitude for believing that they were deemed to be a member of God's family on purely ethnic grounds.

I think you will find no texts that support your assertion that they thought they would justified because they kept the Law.

 

[Andre]

Your responses are perfect nonsense!

When you actually demonstrate a substantive flaw in any of my arguments, then, perhaps, you can make such a statement. Of course, even in that case, you should be more polite.

First, you deny that "good works" is demanded by the words "justified" with "deeds" and "works" of the law, then you admit that "deeds" includes works PLUS ethnic race preference....

This is unclear to me, so please rephrase. One thing I have never, repeat never done, is assert that "deeds include works PLUS ethnoic race preference".

If you are not reading my posts carefully, then, yes, they might well seem like nonsense.

..but deny the "works" part that justifies is "good" which leaves only "bad" as there are only two types of works in the pages of God's Word or in the definition of all religions on the face of the earth "good" and "evil."

This is where you are begging the question - you seem to dismiss, right off the top that there is another possibility - works done to celebrate ethnic privilege. This is not a "good works" vs "bad works" issue.

When the Nazis paraded around in their boots and held their rallies, they were engaging in "works". Why were they doing these things? Because they wanted to earn status as the master race?

No! Because, they believed they had that status by birthright. Unless and until you acknowledge the possibility that Paul is making a similar kind of arugment about the Jews (please do not distort this into a claim of anti-Semitism - it is the principle I am concerned with), we are not going to get anywhere. I at least recognize the possibility of Paul making a "good works" vs "bad works" argument. You need to at least recognize the possibility that Paul's "works" argument is an ethnic privilege argument.

Although when you do, I suggest it will become clear that not only is this a possibility, it is actually what Paul is doing.

Since you have distinguished "ethnicity" from "deeds" in one section of your argument but then denied it in another section of your argument - perfect nonsense is the result.

You are not reading my posts carefully - I have done no such thing. I suspect that you are reading my arguments under your assumptions.

..Ethnicity is not a "deed" or a "work" that YOU DO but a character trait you are born with WITHOUT CHOICE in regard to the Jew.

Exactly, but, as per the Nazi analogy above, people can and do engage in certain practices or "works" to affirm or celebrate the ethnic privilege they believe they have.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The issue is works or deeds for "justification" not works or deeds that "celebrate"!!!! Just as you have skewed Romans 2:13 to be a contrast between "doers" and "racial privilege" when Paul is contrasting "doers" and "hearers" you now skew the Word of God by demanding "celebrating" racial privilege instead of "works" and "deeds" for JUSTIFICATION before God. Either you do not know the difference between "celebrate" and "justification" or you are now trying to merge them into one meaning when one is "party" term and the other is a forensic judical term that has to do with "righteousness."

I have dismantled your doctrine and your interpretative scheme peice by peice and the only one that cannot see that is you. Any reader of these posts knows that you have done nothing but pervert, misinterpret, and even reword the scriptures to defend what is obvious error. You have not been able to respond to my exposition of Romans 2:13-14 and Romans 2:24-29. You have not been able to respond to my exposition of Romans 3:23-31 and the obvious contrast between "works" and "faith" as applied to Romans 3:24-26.

You keep reaffirming that your argument concerning Romans 3:28-29 has not been answered when I have not only answered it but shown how it destroys your whole fabricated doctrine of racial privelge as a basis of justification before God.

You did in fact distinguish between racial privilege and works in regard to my charge that the Scriptures say "DEEDS" and "WORKS" of the law and not merely "born under the Law" and I quote:

I have been arguing that these are "works" carried out by a person who believes they have been justified on ethnic grounds.

Notice the works "are carried out" or what they DO but the ethnicity is "grounds" they BELIEVE what they ARE. Hence, "works" and what the "believe" are not one and the same. The Scriptures NEVER say "justification by enthnic grounds" as even the Jews denied that rediculous claim when they condemned other Jews to Gehenna.

The fact your were forced to CHANGE the wording of Scripture in Romans 2:13 from "hearers" to "privilege" in order to justify your doctrine and then had to follow it with admission that such a change of scripture places the burden of proof on you and not me speaks volumes since the following verse (Rom. 2:14 demands the SAME LAW is in view as in verse 13 and the SAME PROBLEM - hearing versus doing is of the SAME LAW is the subject of verses 17-29. - CASE CLOSED.

When you actually demonstrate a substantive flaw in any of my arguments, then, perhaps, you can make such a statement. Of course, even in that case, you should be more polite.


This is unclear to me, so please rephrase. One thing I have never, repeat never done, is assert that "deeds include works PLUS ethnoic race preference".

If you are not reading my posts carefully, then, yes, they might well seem like nonsense.


This is where you are begging the question - you seem to dismiss, right off the top that there is another possibility - works done to celebrate ethnic privilege. This is not a "good works" vs "bad works" issue.

When the Nazis paraded around in their boots and held their rallies, they were engaging in "works". Why were they doing these things? Because they wanted to earn status as the master race?

No! Because, they believed they had that status by birthright. Unless and until you acknowledge the possibility that Paul is making a similar kind of arugment about the Jews (please do not distort this into a claim of anti-Semitism - it is the principle I am concerned with), we are not going to get anywhere. I at least recognize the possibility of Paul making a "good works" vs "bad works" argument. You need to at least recognize the possibility that Paul's "works" argument is an ethnic privilege argument.

Although when you do, I suggest it will become clear that not only is this a possibility, it is actually what Paul is doing.



You are not reading my posts carefully - I have done no such thing. I suspect that you are reading my arguments under your assumptions.


Exactly, but, as per the Nazi analogy above, people can and do engage in certain practices or "works" to affirm or celebrate the ethnic privilege they believe they have.

 

[Andre]

The issue is works or deeds for "justification" not works or deeds that "celebrate"!!!!

Well, it seems that Paul thinks otherwise. If one wanted to critique a belief that justification is limited to Jews, a perfectly legitimate way to do would be to say that one is not justified by doing the practices that mark the Jew out from his pagan neighbour. That is, the "works" of the Law of Moses.

But, as I have already argued, it is clear that Paul is making an argument about ethnicity, not good works:

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

This, alone, is fatal to your position. When Paul writes of "faith being credited as righteousness", he is speaking of the event whereby Abraham was justified. Surely you agree.

What does Paul then do? He points out that Abraham received this status before he received the mark that identified him as a Jew. Now, although you will need to deny this, the only sensible reason why Paul would point this out is to show that justification is not based on ethnicity as specifically marked out by circumcision.

And this, of course, precisely the kind of thing Paul would say if his concern was that Jews thought their justification were based on their ethnicity.

And it is, of course, entirely irrelevant and out of place if Paul is making a good works argument. Circumcision is not, repeat not, a "good work"! If it were, you could argue that Paul is saying that Abraham's justification precedeed this "good work".

But circumcision, of course, is not a good work, it is an ethnic marker. Paul is making an argument against the belief that justification is limited to Jews. This is re-inforced by what immediately precedes the above from Romans 4:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

I am, frankly, stunned that people do not see this for what it clearly is - an argument that justification, that is being given a status of righteousness, is not an ethnic issue.

 

[Andre]

I have dismantled your doctrine and your interpretative scheme peice by peice and the only one that cannot see that is you.

Of course you have done no such thing and I challenge you to raise one point where you have undermined any of my arguments. Name the issue and we can go over it again.

Any reader of these posts knows that you have done nothing but pervert, misinterpret, and even reword the scriptures to defend what is obvious error.

Your use of language like "pervert" is not helpful. My arguments are what they are. Yet, again, for what must be the fourth time:

If I write this:

A man is justified apart from X; Or is God the God of group Y only? No, He is also God of group Z

......I am, without question, responding to someone who believes that only members of group Y can do X to any measure of success. So whatever X is, it cannot be "universal". So the "man" here cannot be a universal man.

Can you address this argument squarely on its own terms? Paul used the language he used. You really need to accept the implications of it.

 

[Andre]

Just as you have skewed Romans 2:13 to be a contrast between "doers" and "racial privilege" when Paul is contrasting "doers" and "hearers"....

I have never done this and I challenge to support this claim with actual evidence.

How can we have a discussion when you repeatedly make false statements like this?

 

[Dr. Walter]

If Paul were making the emphasis upon ethnicity then why in the world he repetively use "works" and "deeds" and "doers" when ethnicity could be explicitly stated in direct terms such as "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children" or "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God" that is the clear and easy and direct way to deny natural born Jews are not automatically children of God or will automatically are justified by God. Instead, Paul is emphasizing that justification is not by the "works" or "deeds" of the law rather than BEING A JEW.

Romans 4:9-12 is not fatal to my position at all but it is fatal to yours because Abraham was not a Jew but a Gentile - a Syrian by birth. The Jews knew this very well as it is well documented in the Old Testament. God reminded Israel of this very thing. Abraham went back to his SYRIAN family to get a wife for Isaac. Jacob went to his SYRIAN uncle to get a wife.

However, Paul does not introduce Abraham in regard to his ethnicity but in regard to things "pertaining to the flesh" (v. 1) and of first mention are his "works" not his ethnicity (vv. 1,3-6). Hence, the emphasis consistently continues to be "works" not ethnicity.


What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Although, no mosaic law existed, Paul says that he could have gloried in his works "but not before God." This demands that "works" here have nothing to do with being a Jew or Jewish law but with DOING what is RIGHT and GOOD or good works, as God said that Abraham would lead his family in keeping the Lord's commandments:

Ge 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

This is the waterloo for your position not mine as the God says that Abraham would "keep" the way of the Lord "TO DO" justice and judgement and these have NOTHING to do with ethnicity or Jewish law but as a SYRIAN who knew God's moral law of right and wrong and would do "GOOD WORKS" before God.

However, Paul denies that such "works" were responsible for his justification before God. In addition, the ceremonial rite of circumcision was not responsible for justification before God. When the Jewish nation did arise under Jacob "circumcision" was the initial rite for gentiles to become JEWS in religion but not in ethnicity as one must be born a Jew. Abraham was not "born under the law" nor was he born a Jew but he was born a GENTILE. Abraham is proof that common variety of "good works" (Rom. 4:1-6) does not justify one before God nor does circumcision justify one before God (Rom. 4:9-12) nor does keeping the Mosaic law justify one before God (Rom. 4:14-15) nor does anything you are CAPABLE OF DOING justify you before God (Romans 4:16-22) but only faith IN the provision by God in the Person and work of Christ "FOR US" justifies you before God (Rom. 4:23-25).

Abraham is the death of your interpretation and position.

Well, it seems that Paul thinks otherwise. If one wanted to critique a belief that justification is limited to Jews, a perfectly legitimate way to do would be to say that one is not justified by doing the practices that mark the Jew out from his pagan neighbour. That is, the "works" of the Law of Moses.

But, as I have already argued, it is clear that Paul is making an argument about ethnicity, not good works:

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

This, alone, is fatal to your position. When Paul writes of "faith being credited as righteousness", he is speaking of the event whereby Abraham was justified. Surely you agree.

What does Paul then do? He points out that Abraham received this status before he received the mark that identified him as a Jew. Now, although you will need to deny this, the only sensible reason why Paul would point this out is to show that justification is not based on ethnicity as specifically marked out by circumcision.

And this, of course, precisely the kind of thing Paul would say if his concern was that Jews thought their justification were based on their ethnicity.

And it is, of course, entirely irrelevant and out of place if Paul is making a good works argument. Circumcision is not, repeat not, a "good work"! If it were, you could argue that Paul is saying that Abraham's justification precedeed this "good work".

But circumcision, of course, is not a good work, it is an ethnic marker. Paul is making an argument against the belief that justification is limited to Jews. This is re-inforced by what immediately precedes the above from Romans 4:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

I am, frankly, stunned that people do not see this for what it clearly is - an argument that justification, that is being given a status of righteousness, is not an ethnic issue.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ethnicity is by birth not by proselyting. You can be proselyted to the Jewish RELIGION but you cannot be proselyted to become a ethnic Jew unless you are married to an ethnic Jew or born from Jewish parents. Hence "works" and "deeds" have NOTHING to do with ethnicity but with religious conformity to the Jewish relgion. Therefore, your basic premise is wrong - ethnicity is not the issue but religious conformation by "works" is the issue and thus justification by the "works of the law" is the issue.

Hence, you must drop the ethnic argument as it has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about as he is not talking about being "born" a Jew or "marriage" to a Jew.

 

[Andre]

You have not been able to respond to my exposition of Romans 2:13-14

False statement.

and Romans 2:24-29.

False statement

You have not been able to respond to my exposition of Romans 3:23-31 and the obvious contrast between "works" and "faith" as applied to Romans 3:24-26.

False statement.

The reality is that you are either unable, or unwilling to even consider an alternate intepretation of what Paul might mean by "works of the law". You need to see it as a "good works" issue.

Of course, I understand the position you are in. If you allowed the possibility that Paul is making an ethnic argument, you would need to face this coup de grace:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This blessedness is, by context, justification. And the text above is clearly, and I mean clearly beyond dispute, an argument that, yes, justification is not limited to Jews.

So the only option available to you is a pre-emptive strike where you simply do not allow the view that I espousing to even enter into consideration.

I trust that the readers of this thread will draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Andre]

If Paul were making the emphasis upon ethnicity then why in the world he repetively use "works" and "deeds" and "doers" when ethnicity could be explicitly stated in direct terms such as "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children" or "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God" that is the clear and easy and direct way to deny natural born Jews are not automatically children of God or will automatically are justified by God.

The same argument can be used against your position. I agree, Paul does not explicitly assert that salvation is limited to Jews, although he basically does so here:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

You are forced, yes forced, to somehow read this as something other than a Jew - Gentile distinction. Well, as the young people say "good luck with that". Paul is clearly making an argument about how justification is not limited by race. Good works is not the issue, race (ethnicity) is.

But, again, your critique can be levelled back at you. Where does Paul use the term "good works" anywhere in 3:21 to the end of the end of the chapter?

Instead, Paul is emphasizing that justification is not by the "works" or "deeds" of the law rather than BEING A JEW.

Begging the question again - you simply assume that "works" is to be understood as "deeds done to attain righteousness". Not only did Jews not beleive this, it is clear that Paul is making an entirely different argument - one about ethnicity, not "good or bad deeds".

 

[Dr. Walter]

The same argument can be used against your position.

That is false. This same argument cannot be used against my position as my position states the very exact opposite.

I agree, Paul does not explicitly assert that salvation is limited to Jews, although he basically does so here:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

You are forced, yes forced, to somehow read this as something other than a Jew - Gentile distinction. Well, as the young people say "good luck with that". Paul is clearly making an argument about how justification is not limited by race. Good works is not the issue, race (ethnicity) is.

You got to be kidding! You jerk this text out of context and think you have a case??? Abraham is a Syrian by birth not a Jew by birth. Abraham was 430 years before the law of Moses but yet Paul states that Abraham could have boasted in "works" although NOT BEFORE GOD (Rom. 4:1-2)

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.


and therefore such "works" could not possibly have reference to Mosaic law but rather "good works" according to the only law Abraham did know:

Ge 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him

But, again, your critique can be levelled back at you. Where does Paul use the term "good works" anywhere in 3:21 to the end of the end of the chapter?

The very term "justified" in reference to God has to do with "righteousness" before God as Paul clearly states in Romans 4:2. Paul is speaking directly about justification "BY works." Therefore the necessary inference is that "works" provide the justification before God or provide RIGHTEOUSNESS before God. To do that they must be RIGHTEOUS works as UNRIGHTOUS works is an oxymoron in connection with justified BY works BEFORE God! There are only two possible classifications of "works" when the subject is JUSTIFICATION before God - "righteous" and "unrighteous." I hate being so simplisitic but you apparently can't understand basic terms and basic Bible definitions as the Bible knows of NO WORKS that are not ether "good" or "bad" especially in the context of justification as your own Romans 2:6-7 clearly demonstrates.

Begging the question again - you simply assume that "works" is to be understood as "deeds done to attain righteousness". Not only did Jews not beleive this, it is clear that Paul is making an entirely different argument - one about ethnicity, not "good or bad deeds".

There is no assumption here. In every Biblical context where "justification" before God is found "works" refer to either "good" or "bad" and are the basis for either JUSTIFICATioN or CONDEMNATION there is no NEUTRAL "works" anywhere in scripture.

To say that the Jews did not believe in justification by "good works" as defined by the Law of Moses is to simply lie and pervert the facts. Remember the Jewis Pharisee the Jewish Publican who prayed????? The Pharisee did NOT say "I thank God I AM A JEW" but he compared himself as MORE RIGHTEOUS than the other Jew as his basis for acceptance with God. The Jewish Pharisees threatened JEWS with Gehenna for BAD works or DISOBEDIENCE to the law.

Your position is obviously error and your just too pround to admit it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What you claim are "false statement" are true statements. True, because what you did was completely avoid all the evidence presented but simply picked what you wanted to respond to. YOU COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE WHOLE BODY of evidence in each argument I presented because the WHOLE BODY of evidence exposed your interpretations as false.

I have already answer your abuse of Romans 4:9-12 in detail which you have not yet been able to respond to.

False statement.


False statement



False statement.

The reality is that you are either unable, or unwilling to even consider an alternate intepretation of what Paul might mean by "works of the law". You need to see it as a "good works" issue.

Of course, I understand the position you are in. If you allowed the possibility that Paul is making an ethnic argument, you would need to face this coup de grace:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This blessedness is, by context, justification. And the text above is clearly, and I mean clearly beyond dispute, an argument that, yes, justification is not limited to Jews.

So the only option available to you is a pre-emptive strike where you simply do not allow the view that I espousing to even enter into consideration.

I trust that the readers of this thread will draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Andre]

I see no value in any future interactions with you on this matter. I will continue the arguments I began on the first page. Sometimes, one has to pick one's battles.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I see no value in any future interactions with you on this matter. I will continue the arguments I began on the first page. Sometimes, one has to pick one's battles.

I understand and that is your choice.

 

[Andre]

Deleted own post - formatting problems.

 

[Andre]

Note: This is the sixth post in a series – the first five parts need to be read first.

In Romans 10, we are presented with yet more evidence that Paul’s critique of the Jew is not a good works critique, but an ethnic privilege critique.

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Paul is, of course, addressing the nation of Israel here. And he is critiquing them for attempting to establish a righteousness that is limited to Jews and excludes Gentiles (verse 3) as I will argue in this post. A reading that honours context shows that this is not, repeat not, a critique of the Jew attempting to justify himself by his own “good works”. One could, of course, legitimately consider that possibility if it were not for verse 4 and this statement from verse 12, which is clearly part of the same argument:

12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

This verse shows that Paul is concerned here with affirming that God does not care about ethnic boundaries in respect to salvation - the very thing you would expect him to say if, in verse 3, he is rebuking Jews for believing they are ethnically privileged unto justification. If, instead, Paul is critiquing Jewish good works righteousness in verse 3, verse 12 seems to be a different point altogether. Suspicions should arise.

But back to verse 4. In verse 4, Paul suggests that he is concerned with making a case that all – Jews and Gentile alike – obtain righteousness through belief. Note how much better verse 4 coheres with an “ethnic exclusivity” concern in verse 3 – if Paul is indeed critiquing the Jew for establishing a righteousness that excludes the Gentile, then the “for all who believe” of verse 4 is precisely what you would expect.

Note that, by contrast, verse 4 seems like an irrelevant aside to verse 3 if the verse 3 critique is one of Jewish pursuit of “good works” righteousness. After all, how does the fact that God’s grace is for all, Jew and Gentile alike, bear on a critique of Jewish good works righteousness? It does not – the two are essentially separate issues. And that is why one must be suspicious of the “good works” reading. This suspicion is heightened by the use of the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 4 which, for Paul, functions as a “because”. Clearly verse 4 is an explanation of what is wrong with the Jew seeking their “own righteousness. And verse 4 shows that the explanation is that God’s grace is for all, that is, it does not respect ethnic boundaries. Consider the following two renderings:

3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish righteousness by good works, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own and keep the Gentile out, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.


Clearly, the second reading is more internally coherent and integrated.

This shows where the heart of Paul’s critique of the Jew really lies – it is not that they tried to “earn” salvation by doing the good works prescribed by the Law of Moses, it is instead that they thought that non-Jews were not candidates for salvation.

More to come….

 

[Dr. Walter]

Andre,

I want to part with this question for you to consider. God is the author of the Mosaic law as much as God is the author of the covenant of grace. God is the one who gave the Law to Moses and to Israel. What do you think was God's primary reason for giving the Law to Moses? What primary design is behind giving the Law to Israel? Would you agree with Paul's assessment of the primary design as follows?


Gal. 3:9 ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

My question for you is very simple. Does Paul correct the perversion of the Law by the Jews (which you emphasize) by establishing the true divine intent of the Law in Romans 1:18-5:2? If so, which does Paul emphasize in Romans 1:18-5:2 and where is the true intent specified by Paul in this portion of scripture? Does he emphasize the Jewish perversion or the Divine intent? Can the divine intent be limited to only one race of men?

Answer my questions by first applying the law to the INDIVIDUAL Jew according to God's intent in giving it. What did God design to be accomplished by giving the law to this INDIVIDUAL Jew?

 

[Andre]

I want to part with this question for you to consider. God is the author of the Mosaic law as much as God is the author of the covenant of grace. God is the one who gave the Law to Moses and to Israel. What do you think was God's primary reason for giving the Law to Moses? What primary design is behind giving the Law to Israel? Would you agree with Paul's assessment of the primary design as follows?

I will given an answer that I suspect you will not like:

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that Israel would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful the Law of Moses is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear – the Law of Moses cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Law of Moses is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Law of Moses to make Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Law of Moses as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of Israel.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national Israel) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using Israel as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Law of Moses has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making Israel more sinful, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Law of Moses was to "lure sin into Israel" and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Law of Moses to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Law of Moses is then retired with honour.

My question for you is very simple. Does Paul correct the perversion of the Law by the Jews (which you emphasize) by establishing the true divine intent of the Law in Romans 1:18-5:2?

I see no evidence in 1:18-5:2 of the divine intent of the law. I see evidence of that intent in 5,7,9, and 11, but not before.

So, no, Paul does not argue about the true intent of the Law in 1:18-5:2, except to the extent that he says that the Law is "a witness", and is therefore connected to what happens at the Cross.

Can the divine intent be limited to only one race of men?

No. As per my argument above, the Law was given for the benefit of all mankind.