The use of the term "law" in Romans 2:27

[Dr. Walter]

Let us look at the use of the term Law in Rom 2:27

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Now let's contrast that to the law in Rom 3:27

Rom 3

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

It is the same law. In Romans 3 Paul is speaking of the mechanism for a lost person becoming a saved saint. But in Romans 2 Paul is speaking of the perseverance of the saints.


You cannot use Romans 3 to hatchet Romans 2. Both the justification event for the lost sinner AND the Perseverance doctrine for the saved saint are affirmed in Romans 2.

Those who wish to employ a slice and dice - hatchet out the text, model for scripture are operating with less scripture than is required for success.

in Christ,

Bob

The same law but two different contexts with two different applications. In Romans 2:27 it is the pious self-righteous Jew (vv. 17-27) that attempts but fails to keep the law as the very text indicates "dost transgress the law." Hence, Rom. 2:27 refers to the Law of God in the context of personal but failed obedience.

Romans 3:31 has application to the "law of faith" in Romans 3:27 that is pitted against the law "of works." Romans 2:27 illustrates the law "of works" by the Jews who fail to measure up to the law's demands "dost transgress the law" but Romans 3:31 refers to the "law of faith" which is faith in the personal performance of Christ that fulfills the law in the place of the sinner and thus receives the righteousness of the law by imputation rather than by personal obeidence. This is the only way the law's demands for both its penalty and its righteousness can be validated, fulfilled, honored!

Hence, Romans 2:27 is an example of the law of "works" in Romans 3:27 whereas Romans 3:24-26 and Romans 3:31 is an example of the "law of faith" in Romans 3:27b.

 

[BobRyan]

In Romans 2 the force of the argument is comprised of the comparison of a failing example to a successful example - just as we see in Matt 7.

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The failing example is not "all Jews" (Paul is not placing himself in the failing box in Rom 2:25-29) -- it is just those Jews claiming cultural ownership of salvation by virtue of "Being a Jew". The successful example above is the real case of Gentiles - born-again with the Law written on the heart who are doing -- obeying the very Word of God that the rebellious Jew is rebelling against.

It is real success being contrasted to real failure - used as the mechanism to motivate the Jews that are failing in that example.

In Romans 11 Paul makes the same point that he seeks to motivate Jews by the motive of "jealousy" to turn, repent and accept the Gospel as they see REAL success being demonstrated by saved Gentiles.

the point remains.

The comical claim that Paul is motiviating Jews to turn from real failure -- by contrasting real failure to fake and false success would be like the argument "Here bend this steel bar with your bare hands -- Super Man can do it -- so you should too - don't let Super Man get ahead of you on this." Such appeals to fiction to motivate against a failing course of action is comical -- but not practical, and certainly not Biblical.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The same law but two different contexts with two different applications. ..
Romans 3:31 has application to the "law of faith" in Romans 3:27 that is pitted against the law "of works." .

Same Law two different context is that part of your statement that is right.

In Romans 3:31 - it is faith that "establishes" the Commandments of God - the Law of God -- for under the New Covenant the Law of God is written on the heart.

Therefore Paul can say in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

In Romans 2 the force of the argument is comprised of the comparison of a failing example to a successful example - just as we see in Matt 7.

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

First, the Jews being considered are all failing Jews because they are all hypocrits that are being considered. The nature of the hypocrisy is that they believe they are capable of doing the law according to what the law requires! "NO FLESH" is capable of doing the law according to what the Law requires! James 2:10 defines what is required to keep the law according to what the Law requires. In order to keep the law according to what the Law requires is to never fail in a single point as to fail in a single point is to fail in all points and failure brings a man under its curse not its approval (Gal. 3:10).

Here is the crux of our debate! The Jew in Romans 3:17-25 is EVERY JEW who thinks they can meet the standard demanded by the Law! Paul at one time was among such jews because he has denounced that attempt and trusted in the obedience of Christ in his behalf to meet that standard!

Furthermore, you fail to grasp Paul's argument in verses 25-27. The hypocritical Jew who fails to keep the law but THINKS he is keeping the law, believes he is superior to the Gentile due to his circumcision.

Paul then presents a HYPOTHETICAL argument based upon the failure of the jew to keep all the law which renders his circumcision worthless.

Using the subjective mode in verses 25 and 26, the hypothetical mode, manifested in translation by the word "if" in both verse 25 and 26 (subjunctive mode).

The hypothetical argument is that circucumcision of the jew only makes the Jew superior to the Gentile "IF" the Jew keeps ALL the law and IF he does not then his circumcsion is viewed as uncircumcision and his use of circumcision as a mark of superiority over the Gentile is invalidated.

The hypothetical argument continues based upon the invalidation of circumcison by the lawbreaking Jew. In contrast to the lawbreaking but circumcised Jew, IF an uncircumcised Gentile keeps all the law, then his uncircumcised state would be regarded as circumcision since the only value of circumcision is given at birth as the outward sign of full committment to covenant keeping of the law.

Hence, the jew has failed to live up to what the sign of circumcision commits the Jew unto - keeping of ALL the Law - thus invaliding his circumcision making him equal to uncircumcision, while the uncircumcised Gentile has kept all the law without the outward sign and therefore making his uncircumcision equal to circumcision as the goal or committment signified by circumcision has been reached.


Now, look at this argument of Paul! Verses 17-24 declares that ALL JEWS who are the type who profess they can keep the law have ALL failed to keep the law and that is why God is blasphemed among the Gentiles "through you."


24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.


Verses 25-26 using the SUBJUNCTIVE MODE twice set forth the hypothetical arguments.


HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT #1 - v. 25 - "IF" the Jew is capable of keeping the law according to how the Law demands it is to be kept THEN his circumcision is valid. But if he BREAKS the law - his circumcision is regarded invalid or "uncircumcision


25 For circumcision verily profiteth, IF thou keep [SUBJUNCTIVE MODE] the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT #2 - v. 26 "IF" in contrast to the preceding hypothetical argument, the uncircumcised gentile is capable of keeping the law accordiing to how the law demands it is to be kept THEN his uncircumcision is regarded as circumcision

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep [SUBJUNCTIVE MODE] the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

DRAWN CONCLUSIONS: Verses 27-29 are conclusions drawn from the previous two HYPOTHETICAL arguments and thus only HYPOTHETICAL CONCLUSIONS.

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The conclusion is drawn from the hypothetical arguments - "IF" position "A" is true then "B" follows but "IF" position "A" is not true than neither is position "B" that follows. The Gentile cannot keep the Law according to the Law's requirements any more than the Jew can! However, "IF" the Jew could, it would not be because of outward circumcision but because of inward righteous condition. It is this inward righteous condition that Paul denies that either Jew or Gentile can obtain by personal obedience.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First, the Jews being considered are all failing Jews because they are all hypocrits that are being considered. The nature of the hypocrisy is that they believe they are capable of doing the law according to what the law requires! "NO FLESH" is capable of doing the law according to what the Law requires! James 2:10 defines what is required to keep the law according to what the Law requires. In order to keep the law according to what the Law requires is to never fail in a single point as to fail in a single point is to fail in all points and failure brings a man under its curse not its approval (Gal. 3:10).

Here is the crux of our debate! The Jew in Romans 3:17-25 is EVERY JEW who thinks they can meet the standard demanded by the Law! Paul at one time was among such jews because he has denounced that attempt and trusted in the obedience of Christ in his behalf to meet that standard!

Furthermore, you fail to grasp Paul's argument in verses 25-27. The hypocritical Jew who fails to keep the law but THINKS he is keeping the law, believes he is superior to the Gentile due to his circumcision.

Paul then presents a HYPOTHETICAL argument based upon the failure of the jew to keep all the law which renders his circumcision worthless.

Using the subjective mode in verses 25 and 26, the hypothetical mode, manifested in translation by the word "if" in both verse 25 and 26 (subjunctive mode).

The hypothetical argument is that circucumcision of the jew only makes the Jew superior to the Gentile "IF" the Jew keeps ALL the law and IF he does not then his circumcsion is viewed as uncircumcision and his use of circumcision as a mark of superiority over the Gentile is invalidated.

The hypothetical argument continues based upon the invalidation of circumcison by the lawbreaking Jew. In contrast to the lawbreaking but circumcised Jew, IF an uncircumcised Gentile keeps all the law, then his uncircumcised state would be regarded as circumcision since the only value of circumcision is given at birth as the outward sign of full committment to covenant keeping of the law.

Hence, the jew has failed to live up to what the sign of circumcision commits the Jew unto - keeping of ALL the Law - thus invaliding his circumcision making him equal to uncircumcision, while the uncircumcised Gentile has kept all the law without the outward sign and therefore making his uncircumcision equal to circumcision as the goal or committment signified by circumcision has been reached.


Now, look at this argument of Paul! Verses 17-24 declares that ALL JEWS who are the type who profess they can keep the law have ALL failed to keep the law and that is why God is blasphemed among the Gentiles "through you."


24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.


Verses 25-26 using the SUBJUNCTIVE MODE twice set forth the hypothetical arguments.


HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT #1 - v. 25 - "IF" the Jew is capable of keeping the law according to how the Law demands it is to be kept THEN his circumcision is valid. But if he BREAKS the law - his circumcision is regarded invalid or "uncircumcision


25 For circumcision verily profiteth, IF thou keep [SUBJUNCTIVE MODE] the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT #2 - v. 26 "IF" in contrast to the preceding hypothetical argument, the uncircumcised gentile is capable of keeping the law accordiing to how the law demands it is to be kept THEN his uncircumcision is regarded as circumcision

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep [SUBJUNCTIVE MODE] the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

DRAWN CONCLUSIONS: Verses 27-29 are conclusions drawn from the previous two HYPOTHETICAL arguments and thus only HYPOTHETICAL CONCLUSIONS.

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The conclusion is drawn from the hypothetical arguments - "IF" position "A" is true then "B" follows but "IF" position "A" is not true than neither is position "B" that follows. The Gentile cannot keep the Law according to the Law's requirements any more than the Jew can! However, "IF" the Jew could, it would not be because of outward circumcision but because of inward righteous condition. It is this inward righteous condition that Paul denies that either Jew or Gentile can obtain by personal obedience.

Paul's argument is that neither the Jew or the Gentile by personal obedience to the law can obtain INTERNAL RIGHTEOUSNESS!

They cannot obtain it that way because of what the law requires to be regarded as doers of the law. James 2:10 spells out what the law demands to be doers of the law. Galatians 3:10-11 spells it out and denies that any man can accomplish that command! This is the condition of those being considered in Romans 1:18-3:8. This is the condition of those in Romans 2:1-5. This is the condition of those in Romans 2:17-25. The Law's criteria and conseqences "according to..works" are set forth in Romans 2:6-16.

This is the conclusive argument by Paul in Romans 3:9-20! All Gentiles and All Jews are included even Paul and those he writes unto as ALL of them were in this condition prior to salvation and that is exactly what Paul is considering in Romans 1:18-3:8 - the unredeemed human condition.

At the very minimum, Romans 2:25-29 argues that law keeping cannot obtain inward righteousness. At the very minimum the hypothetical case of a gentile who is inwardly righteous did not obtain it through law keeping as the text explicitly states they did not submit to outward circucmision and therefore the inward righteous state cannot be due to law keeping (the praise of men) but due "of God" (1 Cor. 1:30).

 

[BobRyan]

In Romans 2 the force of the argument is comprised of the comparison of a failing example to a successful example - just as we see in Matt 7.

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The failing example is not "all Jews" (Paul is not placing himself in the failing box in Rom 2:25-29) -- it is just those Jews claiming cultural ownership of salvation by virtue of "Being a Jew". The successful example above is the real case of Gentiles - born-again with the Law written on the heart who are doing -- obeying the very Word of God that the rebellious Jew is rebelling against.

It is real success being contrasted to real failure - used as the mechanism to motivate the Jews that are failing in that example.

In Romans 11 Paul makes the same point that he seeks to motivate Jews by the motive of "jealousy" to turn, repent and accept the Gospel as they see REAL success being demonstrated by saved Gentiles.

the point remains.

The comical claim that Paul is motiviating Jews to turn from real failure -- by contrasting real failure to fake and false success would be like the argument "Here bend this steel bar with your bare hands -- Super Man can do it -- so you should too - don't let Super Man get ahead of you on this." Such appeals to fiction to motivate against a failing course of action is comical -- but not practical, and certainly not Biblical.

Hint - that means there is no "All Jews are going to hell" argument being made in Romans 2. Rather the chapter speaks to a specific Jewish group that is rejecting the Gospel although claiming the name Christian.

Paul contrasts the failing Jews to the real succeeding Gentiles.

First, the Jews being considered are all failing Jews because they are all hypocrits that are being considered. The nature of the hypocrisy is that they believe they are capable of doing the law according to what the law requires! "NO FLESH" is capable of doing the law according to what the Law requires!

True. The lost person cannot become saved by law keeping. (said again for the zillionth time).

Here is the crux of our debate! The Jew in Romans 3:17-25 is EVERY JEW who thinks they can meet the standard demanded by the Law!

Paul at one time was among such jews

I just can't believe you are that clueless on the crux of our debate after all these posts!!!

That case of how a lost person accepts salvation -- (yes even a lost Jew as Saul was before he became Paul) has NEVER been debated on this thread or anyone like it - by me.

Clearly you have come to the point where you simply read your own ranting and suppose that somehow I endorse the wild ideas you insert - - my arguments to the contrary not withstanding. Your tactics a are apparently only interfering with your own abilibty to grasp the nature of the debate.

Why keep doing it?

Walter
Furthermore, you fail to grasp Paul's argument in verses 25-27. The hypocritical Jew who fails to keep the law but THINKS he is keeping the law, believes he is superior to the Gentile due to his circumcision.

Again - failure on your part to grasp the point of difference. I have always said that lost Jews -- inside the Christian Church in Rome are being contrasted with real saved gentiles in Romans 2.

At some point you have to setp out of your imaginary realm and into the actual conversation. We are only a zillion posts down the road on this one by now.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now -- one more time -- this time "with feeling" -- and we will instantly get to the real crux of the debate -- no imaginary straw-men

Bob said -

In Romans 2 the force of the argument is comprised of the comparison of a failing example to a successful example - just as we see in Matt 7.

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The failing example is not "all Jews" (Paul is not placing himself in the failing box in Rom 2:25-29) -- it is just those Jews claiming cultural ownership of salvation by virtue of "Being a Jew". The successful example above is the real case of Gentiles - born-again with the Law written on the heart who are doing -- obeying the very Word of God that the rebellious Jew is rebelling against.

It is real success being contrasted to real failure - used as the mechanism to motivate the Jews that are failing in that example.

In Romans 11 Paul makes the same point that he seeks to motivate Jews by the motive of "jealousy" to turn, repent and accept the Gospel as they see REAL success being demonstrated by saved Gentiles.

the point remains.

The comical claim that Paul is motiviating Jews to turn from real failure -- by contrasting real failure to fake and false success would be like the argument "Here bend this steel bar with your bare hands -- Super Man can do it -- so you should too - don't let Super Man get ahead of you on this." Such appeals to fiction to motivate against a failing course of action is comical -- but not practical, and certainly not Biblical.

Walter said

Paul then presents a HYPOTHETICAL argument based upon the failure of the jew to keep all the law which renders his circumcision worthless.

Using the subjective mode in verses 25 and 26, the hypothetical mode, manifested in translation by the word "if" in both verse 25 and 26 (subjunctive mode).

The hypothetical argument is that circucumcision of the jew only makes the Jew superior to the Gentile "IF" the Jew keeps ALL the law

1. Hint: the unsaved Christian Jews in Rome WERE claiming to keep all the law. So Paul shows them where they are failing - and where they needed to repent and start keeping the Law of God rather than causing the name of God to be blasphemed by their rebellion against God's Law.

2. In 1John 1:9 "IF we confess our sins ..." is not meant to be a "fictional case" ... the word "IF" does not constitute the fictional "this could never happen" idea you are trying to insert into the text.

hint -- "25 ...but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision

Walter said
and IF he does not then his circumcsion is viewed as uncircumcision and his use of circumcision as a mark of superiority over the Gentile is invalidated.

The hypothetical argument continues based upon the invalidation of circumcison by the lawbreaking Jew. In contrast to the lawbreaking but circumcised Jew, IF an uncircumcised Gentile keeps all the law, then his uncircumcised state would be regarded as circumcision since the only value of circumcision is given at birth as the outward sign of full committment to covenant keeping of the law.
.

Your solution is to bend-and-wrench the text into saying "no gentile will condemn the unsaved Jews who are the focus of Romans 2 -- because no gentile obeys as Paul describes them"...

How transparently flawed your argument at that point.

Paul uses the same argument in Romans 2 as Christ does in Matt 7 -- both contrast the failing cases with the succeeding cases as a means of motivating those who are failing - to succeed.

It is NOT the commic book fiction you have imagined where failure is being contrasted to "pure fiction" as the succeeding example.

And this is the "crux" of our debate.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Furthermore, you fail to grasp Paul's argument in verses 25-27. The hypocritical Jew who fails to keep the law but THINKS he is keeping the law, believes he is superior to the Gentile due to his circumcision.

...

Now, look at this argument of Paul! Verses 17-24 declares that ALL JEWS who are the type who profess they can keep the law have ALL failed to keep the law and that is why God is blasphemed among the Gentiles "through you."


24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.


Verses 25-26 using the SUBJUNCTIVE MODE twice set forth the hypothetical arguments.

A few hints from your own quotes -- the "IF THOU" clause is applied to both the failing and the succeeding examples --

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, IF thou keep [SUBJUNCTIVE MODE] the law: but IF thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Walter
The conclusion is drawn from the hypothetical arguments - "IF" position "A" is true then "B" follows but "IF" position "A" is not true than neither is position "B" that follows.

Which is why your own argument dies - because if there is no one to condemn the Jews - because in your own fiction no such gentile exists - then the conclusion is that they will NOT be condemned -- which breaks the entire force of the argument in Romans 2.

It does not get any easier than that.

Furthermore Paul does NOT include himself as one who causes the name of God to be blasphemed among the gentiles - because he regards himself as a saved saint who "by the Spirit puts to death the deeds of the flesh"(Rom 8) as a law keeper who does not present himself as a "slave to sin" Rom 6 - not a law breaker who "does not submit to the law of God neither indeed CAN they" (Rom 8)!

1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now -- one more time -- this time "with feeling" -- and we will instantly get to the real crux of the debate -- no imaginary straw-men

1. Hint: the unsaved Christian Jews in Rome WERE claiming to keep all the law. So Paul shows them where they are failing - and where they needed to repent and start keeping the Law of God rather than causing the name of God to be blasphemed by their rebellion against God's Law.

Let the reader compare Bob's first paragraph above to his second. He is still arguing for the possibility that the jew is able to keep the law according to the standard required by the law! Hence, his complaint of "circle" arguing and "straw man" arguments are false! You must understand there is no real salvation obtained by Bob's view of justification or initial salvation. Real salvation, meaning actual obtaining entrance into heaven according to Bob's soteriology falls under sanctification not justification and is obtained by law keeping and not by Christ's obedience to the law.

2. In 1John 1:9 "IF we confess our sins ..." is not meant to be a "fictional case" ... the word "IF" does not constitute the fictional "this could never happen" idea you are trying to insert into the text.

I John 1:9 is by immediate context directly addressed to Christians (as is the whole book by overall context- 1 Jn. 5:13) only and even though Bob will deny this, he cannot disprove what I am saying as the contextual identification of "we" in 1 Jn. 1:1-2:1 EXCLUDES all people who do not profess Christ! Second, Both the condition and conclusion are realistic in regard to the subjects being applied.


The significant difference between 1 Jn 1:8 and Romans 2:24-27 are the subjects being addressed. In I Jn. the contextual "we" are professed Christians who have a relationship with the Father through Christ (1 Jn. 1:7) whereas the subject of Romans 2:24-27 are LOST JEWS who hypocritically believe they will be justified according to their own works under the law and beleive that their superiority over the Gentiles is attested by circumcision!

Romans 2:23-24 identifies them as LAW BREAKERS and the same pronoun "thou" in verse 25 proves this grammatically!

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Romans 3:25 sets forth the first hypothetical consideration. The condition to be met is found in the first subjunctive clause "For circumcision verily profiteth, IF thou keep the law" - here is the condition for hypothetical consideration. It is hypothetical for several reasons:

1. It has not been proved this person does keep the law as that is the condition
2. The contextual subject "thou" has been just declared to be lawbreakers - vv. 23-24 and therefore they have already failed to "keep" that condition.
3. It is in regard to justification before God which has not yet occurred in reality.

The second subjunctive clause sets forth the real and true conclusion since they have already been declared law breakers: "but if THOU be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." That is the only possible true conclusion that this hypothetical illustration can draw due to verse 23-24 where this same "you" or "thou" has been condemned as law breakers.

Now, Romans 2:26 applies this failed condition of the Jews to the Gentile with a contrasting hypothetical conclusion:

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

The term "therefore" shows that the hypothetical consideration that has been applied to the FAILED Jew in verse 25 is now being applied to the gentile in reverse as the Gentile is without circumcsion.

Paul presents an hypothetical but equally impossible condition "if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law" as the Gentile can no better "keep" the righteousness of the Law any better than the Jew according to what the Law requires as keeping it (James 2:10) and the law does not have TWO standards to determine what is and what is not keeping the law (Gal. 3:10-11). But, the argument is "IF" that were possible then the reality would be that the uncircumcision of the Gentile would be regarded as circumcision before God for justification (v. 24).

His point is that NO HUMAN BEING can achieve the righteousness of the law by what they do and therefore NO HUMAN BEING is better than the other. This text espeically is designed to prove the Jew is no better than the Gentile as Romans 3:1 presumes by the very question it asks.

The point is that true righteousness cannot be obtained by keeping the law as the hypothetical Gentile did not submit to the law of circumcision and therefore law keeping did not obtain righteousness for the Gentile and thus no flesh has any grounds to boast they are better than others due to law keeping.

However, bob's position is the very reverse of Paul's. Bob believes that law keeping is precisely what gives one person a better status in judgement than another and what ultimately justifies entrance into heaven.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No such Jew or Gentile exists that obtains righteousness by law keeping and that is exactly what these verses illustrate and why they present hypothetical conditions that are impossible to achieve by keeping the law.

This closing argument is directed to those described in verses 17-24 because they believe they will be justified by keeping the law as they define it and that circumcision evidences their perceived superiority over the Gentiles.

Circumcision is an OUTWARD action that cannot produce any INWARD change of nature but that is the only way that circumcision can profit a Jew if outward obedience to the law could produce an inward change of nature! It cannot.

Lastly, such an INWARD change of nature cannot be acheived through law keeping but is "of God"(v.29b). Hence, law keeping IS OF NO VALUE to either Jew or Gentile in obtaining Justification before God (v. 24). Law keeping IS OF NO VALUE to the Gentile since such an INWARD CONDITION is obtained WITHOUT OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW of circumcision given by God BEFORE Moses to Abraham (Rom. 4:9-12).

The true Jew is one who has obtained the righteousness of God WITHOUT LAW KEEPING but "of God" through the provision God has provided in Romans 3:24-26!

A few hints from your own quotes -- the "IF THOU" clause is applied to both the failing and the succeeding examples --

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, IF thou keep [SUBJUNCTIVE MODE] the law: but IF thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.



Which is why your own argument dies - because if there is no one to condemn the Jews - because in your own fiction no such gentile exists - then the conclusion is that they will NOT be condemned -- which breaks the entire force of the argument in Romans 2.

It does not get any easier than that.

Furthermore Paul does NOT include himself as one who causes the name of God to be blasphemed among the gentiles - because he regards himself as a saved saint who "by the Spirit puts to death the deeds of the flesh"(Rom 8) as a law keeper who does not present himself as a "slave to sin" Rom 6 - not a law breaker who "does not submit to the law of God neither indeed CAN they" (Rom 8)!

1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Romans 2 the force of the argument is comprised of the comparison of a failing example to a successful example - just as we see in Matt 7.

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The failing example is not "all Jews" (Paul is not placing himself in the failing box in Rom 2:25-29) -- it is just those Jews claiming cultural ownership of salvation by virtue of "Being a Jew". The successful example above is the real case of Gentiles - born-again with the Law written on the heart who are doing -- obeying the very Word of God that the rebellious Jew is rebelling against.

It is real success being contrasted to real failure - used as the mechanism to motivate the Jews that are failing in that example.

In Romans 11 Paul makes the same point that he seeks to motivate Jews by the motive of "jealousy" to turn, repent and accept the Gospel as they see REAL success being demonstrated by saved Gentiles.

the point remains.

The comical claim that Paul is motiviating Jews to turn from real failure -- by contrasting real failure to fake and false success would be like the argument "Here bend this steel bar with your bare hands -- Super Man can do it -- so you should too - don't let Super Man get ahead of you on this." Such appeals to fiction to motivate against a failing course of action is comical -- but not practical, and certainly not Biblical.

Paul presents an hypothetical but equally impossible condition "if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law" as the Gentile can no better "keep" the righteousness of the Law any better than the Jew .

And there we have it - the "crux" of Walter's "circle back" model as compared to the actual content of Romans 2.

A more stark and glaring contrast could hardly be imagined.

The Gospel transformation by the Holy Spirit is "explicitly in the text" in Romans 2 as quoted above at the end of the chapter.

The Gospel deliverance from slavery to sin for those who are born again saints -- is "explicit in the text" in Romans 6.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

In Romans 2 the force of the argument is comprised of the comparison of a failing example to a successful example - just as we see in Matt 7.

Note where Bob begins the text below! If he had included verse 23 with verse 24 then it would be established that ALL of whom Paul is talking about had already broken the law and therefore their circumcision was invalid as a sign of superiority over the Gentile in the day of Judgement. Paul is not talking about saved Jews and Gentiles because saved Jews and Gentiles are not justified UNDER LAW through works but UNDER GRACE through faith without works. Verses 25-27 is a hypothetical rationalization that confirms what he has already declared and concluded in verses 23-24 – there is no such Jew as those described in verses 17-24 as righteous before God.

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God IS blasphemed among the Gentiles [B]through you[/B], as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Paul after declaring they have failed, he simply draws the conclusion that circumcision only profits the Jew in the day of judgement if they have not failed! His point is the same as James. You cannot claim success on judgement day if you have failed in one point as that failure violates all points. Hence, for circumcision to profit the Jew UNDER LAW according to his works he must keep all points equally.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The failing example is not "all Jews" (Paul is not placing himself in the failing box in Rom 2:25-29) -- it is just those Jews claiming cultural ownership of salvation by virtue of "Being a Jew". The successful example above is the real case of Gentiles - born-again with the Law written on the heart who are doing -- obeying the very Word of God that the rebellious Jew is rebelling against.

No such boast exists in Romans 2:17-24 that “being a Jew” saves them! They are “called” Jews but their boast is not in what they are “called” but in what they make their rest and boast in – keepers of the law:

17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will…..23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law,

Paul’s argument is simple! The righteous Jew and Gentile do not obtain righteousness by law keeping. This is self-evident as the Gentile does not PERSONALLY submit to God’s law of circumcision but circumcision is imputed to him as though the gentile PERSONALLY did submit to circumcision.

Romans 3:1 demonstrates the reader concludes that circumcision and law keeping does not give the Jew any "advantage" over the gentile in the day of judgement and therefore asks what profit is there then in being a Jew and having circumcision if it does not profit them on the day of judgment?? The answer is that the profit is found now with a better revelation than given to the Gentile:

1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The righteousness necessary in the day of judgment for both Jew and Gentile does not come from law keeping because neither Jew or Gentile live up to the law they are given.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The comical claim that Paul is motiviating Jews to turn from real failure -- by contrasting real failure to fake and false success would be like the argument "Here bend this steel bar with your bare hands -- Super Man can do it -- so you should too - don't let Super Man get ahead of you on this." Such appeals to fiction to motivate against a failing course of action is comical -- but not practical, and certainly not Biblical.

The real failure is their belief and attempt to seek justification by the works of the law! Once Paul declares they have failed (vv. 23-24) he then makes that fact the basis for his rational argument to prove that law breakers have no grounds to claim superiority over Gentiles. LIke So:

1. Jews have failed to keep the law - vv. 23-24

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.


2. Since circucmision only profits those who keep the law, but as I have just proven you are a breaker of the law and therefore, your circumcision is invalid and profits you nothing for justification or for claiming superiority over Gentiles in the day of judgement - v. 25

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


3. Moreover, If a Gentile did keep the law (law revealed to him through conscience) then his uncircumcision (which law was not revealed to him) would be regarded before God as equal to circumcision and he would be your superior rather than you his - v. 26

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?


4. Therefore, a true Jew is not one who is attempting to obtain righteousness outwardly by personal obedience to good works like circucmision in the flesh "according to the letter" of the Law, but a true Jew is one who obtains righteousness inwardly according to the work of the Spirit. :

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;

Verses 28-29 are simply working definitions of what "is" and what "is not" a true Jew rather than examples of actual success cases over actual failure cases.

There is a vast distinction between defining what something is or is not versus providing personal application to actual persons! Verses 28-29 is given in generic terms without any personal pronominal applications!

Likewise, verses 17-24 is given in GENERIC terms without any PERSONAL applications but is simply definitive of all jews who seek justification "according to his works" UNDER LAW (which is their boast).



Now, is my interpretation correct or is Bob's? Romans 3:1 demonstrates my interpretation is correct:

1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

The rhetorical question assumes that Paul has proven that the law and circumcision does not give advantage over the Gentile in the day of judgement and does not justify them. Therefore, what advantage is there to being a jew over being a Gentile and what profit is there of circumcision if it does not profit you in the day of judgement? His answer; presently there are lots of advantages but the cheif advantage that really is the basis for all present advantages is that the Jew has been given fuller revelation:

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The real failure is their belief and attempt to seek justification by the works of the law! Once Paul declares they have failed (vv. 23-24) he then makes that fact the basis for his rational argument to prove that law breakers have no grounds to claim superiority over Gentiles. LIke So:

1. Jews have failed to keep the law - vv. 23-24

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.


2. Since circucmision only profits those who keep the law, but as I have just proven you are a breaker of the law and therefore, your circumcision is invalid and profits you nothing for justification or for claiming superiority over Gentiles in the day of judgement - v. 25

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


3. Moreover, If a Gentile did keep the law (law revealed to him through conscience) then his uncircumcision (which law was not revealed to him) would be regarded before God as equal to circumcision and he would be your superior rather than you his - v. 26

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?


4. Therefore, a true Jew is not one who is attempting to obtain righteousness outwardly by personal obedience to good works like circucmision in the flesh "according to the letter" of the Law, but a true Jew is one who obtains righteousness inwardly according to the work of the Spirit. :

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;

Verses 28-29 are simply working definitions of what "is" and what "is not" a true Jew rather than examples of actual success cases over actual failure cases.

There is a vast distinction between defining what something is or is not versus providing personal application to actual persons! Verses 28-29 is given in generic terms without any personal pronominal applications!

Likewise, verses 17-24 is given in GENERIC terms without any PERSONAL applications but is simply definitive of all jews who seek justification "according to his works" UNDER LAW (which is their boast).



Now, is my interpretation correct or is Bob's? Romans 3:1 demonstrates my interpretation is correct:

1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

The rhetorical question assumes that Paul has proven that the law and circumcision does not give advantage over the Gentile in the day of judgement and does not justify them. Therefore, what advantage is there to being a jew over being a Gentile and what profit is there of circumcision if it does not profit you in the day of judgement? His answer; presently there are lots of advantages but the cheif advantage that really is the basis for all present advantages is that the Jew has been given fuller revelation:

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

We have proven that Romans 2:1-5 excludes any "success cases" because the pronouns demand the same person in verse 4 is the same person being described in verses 1-3 and in verse 5.

What Bob fails to see or more accurately refuses to see is that the person in verses 1-5 thinks he can escape the day of judgement based upon his own personal merits or "according to his works" and that Paul's response to that kind of thinking is that the judgement of God will be "righteous" (v. 5) when dealing with this person "according to his works"(v. 6).

A. Verses 6-8 are given to DEFINE the JUST criteria and consequences "according to his works" UNDER LAW.

1. The Just criteria and consequences of works approved by the Law - v. 7

2. The Just criteria and consequences of works disapproved by the Law - v. 9


B. Verses 9-16 is given to define the JUST criteria for judging Jews versus Gentiles UNDER LAW

1. God's Judgement is not based upon respect of persons - vv. 9-11

2. God's Judgement is according to light given - vv. 12-15

a. Jew and Gentile will be judged according to the light given - vv. 12-13
b. The Gentile will be judged according to the law of conscience - vv. 14-15

3. The righteousness of Christ as revealed in the Gospel is the standard for
judging all men's works from motive to completion - v. 16


C. Keeping the law of God is the Jews boast over Gentiles - vv. 17-24

1. The Law is the Boast of those called jews - v. 17

2. Knowing and Doing the Law is their boast - vv.18-19

3. Ability to teach others the law is their boast - v. 20

4. Failure to observe the law is their hypocrisy - vv. 21-24


D. No Jew Can Profit from His boast in the day of Judgement - vv. 25-3:2

1. To profit in the day of judgement the jew must keep the whole law but
none have - v. 25

2. Since the jew has failed, If the Gentile keeps the law (law of conscience) he would be superior to the
Jew in the day of judgement. - vv. 26-27

3. Therefore righteousness does not come through externally personal
observation of the law, for example as in obedience to circumcision or any other obedience to the letter of the law
but comes inwardly by the Spirit. The true Jew is one who is righteous inwardly already. - vv. 28-29.

4. There is no profit being a jew or in circumcision over the Gentile in the
day of judgement as no Jew has kept the law. The only profit is now
because they have been given more light - 3:1-2

 

[BobRyan]

Peter says that they are condemned who "obey not the Gospel".

in Matt 7 Christ said that those who do the Will of the Father are saved not the mere sayers of "Lord Lord"

In Rom 2:13 Paul says that those who are DOERS of the Law are justified in the future judgment.

Instead of Romans 2 giving an example of "all fail without the Gospel" -- Paul gives us those saved saints saved UNDER the Gospel call to repentance and IN the future Gospel judgment - vs those that fail.

The failing cases contrasted with the succeeding cases just as in Romans 1 just as in Matt 7 --

As Heb 8 points out - the New Heart - has the Law of God written on it.

So Paul's argument in Romans 2 includes the New Covenant saints (yes even among the Gentiles) and contrasts them to THOSE Jews that happen to be lost.

Rom 2
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.


9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,

The New Birth promise of Heb 8 "The Law written on the heart" is being identified in that Romans 2 section above. Impossible to miss for the unbiased objective Bible student.


In Romans 2 Paul does NOT argue "all Jews are lost" rather he argues that every man among the Jews and the Gentiles (BOTH groups) will go to heaven if the fruits show the born-again New Covenant result of a good tree, and every man among BOTH Jews and gentiles that shows the result of bad fruit will be found to be a bad tree - and will in the end - to to hell based on an unbiased impartial law regarding the fruit of the good tree vs the bad tree.

A principle Christ himself identifies in Matt 7.

obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The real failure is their belief and attempt to seek justification by the works of the law! Once Paul declares they have failed (vv. 23-24) he then makes that fact the basis for his rational argument to prove that law breakers have no grounds to claim superiority over Gentiles. LIke So:

1. Jews have failed to keep the law - vv. 23-24

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

You have now sunk your own argument!

In vs 23-25 Paul is NOT condemning HIMSELF by saying "I am a jew and all of us are breaking God's law and causing God's name to be blasphemed among the gentiles. It is our lot. It is what we must do because we are jews"

Rather Paul is contrasting those particular Jews that are lost with both Jews and Gentiles that are saved.

How instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

How fatal to the argument that Romans 2 claiming that all jews are causing God's name to be blasphemed without exception.

Incredibly easy for the unbiased objective Bible student to see this point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,



The New Birth promise of Heb 8 "The Law written on the heart" is being identified in that Romans 2 section above. Impossible to miss for the unbiased objective Bible student.

Paul's objective in verses 11-15 is to prove that God's judgement under law will be fair without respect of person (v. 11). He then states the fair and just way to judge the jew is by the law of Moses. However, the Gentile cannot be judged fairly under the law of Moses (vv. 12-14).

Bob's interpretation of verse 15 as a reference to regenerated persons under the New Covenant destroys the contextual development of thought which is to establish the just basis for judging Gentiles apart from the Mosaic Law! Paul's subject is judgement UNDER LAW (vv. 12-13) but what law is the Gentile to be judged fairly by? Verse 15 answers that problem posed by the preceding context (vv. 11-14). They will be judged by the law written upon their conscience (v. 15).

Secondly, the law of God is written upon the NEW HEART not the old heart (Ezek. 36:26; 2 Cor. 3:3). Paul explains that the "heart" in question in Romans 2:15 deals with that aspect called "conscience" for the purpose of providing a standard for JUDGEMENT not salvation.

In Romans 2 Paul does NOT argue "all Jews are lost"

He is contextually arguing that "ALL JEWS" who fit the contextual descriptions provided in Romans 2:1-5 and 17-25 are hypocrits who will come under the condemation of the Law justly applied. Their hypocrisy is that they think they can "according to his works" without grace, without Christ, without the New Covenant, can be justified solely by their professed obedience to the Law of God when in actually they have violated it (vv. 3,5,23-24).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter

The real failure is their belief and attempt to seek justification by the works of the law! Once Paul declares they have failed (vv. 23-24) he then makes that fact the basis for his rational argument to prove that law breakers have no grounds to claim superiority over Gentiles. LIke So:

1. Jews have failed to keep the law - vv. 23-24

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.



You have now sunk your own argument!

In vs 23-25 Paul is NOT condemning HIMSELF by saying "I am a jew and all of us are breaking God's law and causing God's name to be blasphemed among the gentiles. It is our lot. It is what we must do because we are jews"

Where do you get that idea from my words above? Notice I mentioned "Paul said THEY" which is a clear distinction between Paul and those he is writing about! He is writing about the common ordinary lost Jew who makes his boast in keeping the law as his basis for thinking he is superior to the Gentiles and for ultimately being justified by God at judgement. Paul had formerly been among such.

You cannot over turn my exposition so you pervert it! What an eye opener that should be for the readers!

 

[Andre]

In Romans 2 the force of the argument is comprised of the comparison of a failing example to a successful example - just as we see in Matt 7.

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The failing example is not "all Jews" (Paul is not placing himself in the failing box in Rom 2:25-29) -- it is just those Jews claiming cultural ownership of salvation by virtue of "Being a Jew". The successful example above is the real case of Gentiles - born-again with the Law written on the heart who are doing -- obeying the very Word of God that the rebellious Jew is rebelling against.

I think your analysis is absolutely correct.

Some people - and I suspect Dr. Walter is one of them - seem to think that Paul really does not believe what he writes in Romans 2, that some will indeed attain eternal life based on their deeds. But if this is not so, it seems hard to see how it makes sense to warn the hypocrite at the beginning of the chapter. A warning, after all, only functions as a warning if the person being warned has the possiblity of coming out on the right side.

 

[Andre]

You have now sunk your own argument!

In vs 23-25 Paul is NOT condemning HIMSELF by saying "I am a jew and all of us are breaking God's law and causing God's name to be blasphemed among the gentiles. It is our lot. It is what we must do because we are jews"

Rather Paul is contrasting those particular Jews that are lost with both Jews and Gentiles that are saved.

Agree. Paul tells in other places that he was "blameless" in respect to the Law of Moses. As you say, Paul is not making a criticism that can be levelled at each and every Jew - it is rather a critique of the nation as a whole.