Romans 3:1 Interpetation

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Dr. Walter, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 3:1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

    Bob would you agree to the following conclusions to Romans 3:1


    1. Romans 3:1 PRECEDES Romans 3:4


    2. Romans 3:1 is something about the "advantage" of being a jew and the "profit" of circumcision

    3. Romans 3:1 infers that in some sense there is NO "advantage" in being a Jew or there AND no "profit" in circumcision.

    4. Romans 3:1 is a senseless question unless Paul has just previously proven that in some sense there is no "advantage" of being a Jew and proven there is no "profit" in circumcision.

    5. That Paul would had to previously demonstrate this before this question could be rationally and reasonably asked?

    6. That previous to Romans 3:1 we should find the evidence presented by Paul why there is no "advantage" in being a Jew and why there is no "profit" in circumcision.
     
    #1 Dr. Walter, Jan 9, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2011
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In Romans 2 Paul shows that the SAVED saints are to be found among both the Jews and the Gentiles and the stubborn lost are to be found BOTH among the Jews and the Gentiles.

    He has spent chapter 1 contrasting the lost world to the saved saints of the world world.

    He spent chapter 2 contrasting the lost among Jews and Gentiles to the saved among Jews and Gentiles.

    Thus he did away in Chapter 2 with the notion "you are saved because you are a Jew and you are lost because you are a gentile". Paul points out that there are lost among BOTH and there are saved among BOTH groups.

    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.

    Paul says that this is IN the context of the Gospel call to repentance and the Gospel good news of the future judgment where as Daniel notes "Judgement is passed in favor of the saints".

    It just does not get any easier than this!

    =========

    Thus in Romans 3 it is logical to ask "Well then what ADVANTAGE is there to being a Jew" if in fact there are SAVED among BOTH Jew AND Gentile just as there are the lost among BOTH Jew AND Gentile.

    so in Romans 3 Paul says that advantage is in "Scripture" - the Jews are those who have the blessing of access to scripture where can be found - the Gospel.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Afraid to answer simple questions? Try again!


     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    3. Romans 3:1 infers that in some sense there is NO "advantage" in being a Jew or there AND no "profit" in circumcision.

    Not to Romans living in Rome. Maybe to Jews living in Jerusalem.
     
  5. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 3:1 is a rhetorical question posed by Paul to demonstrate he has proved his point in Romans 2:1-29 that in the day of judgment and under the law according to justification by works there is no advantage to being a Jew or profit to being circumcised simply because the Law's standard of GOOD ENOUGH works demands absolute sinlessness inside and outside.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In my quote above - I see "me" addressing the point of Rom 3:1 - why do you not respond to the answer given?

    In answer to the question "What advantage" does the Jew have - Paul does not say "None at all" rather Paul said -
    1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
    2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.



    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #6 BobRyan, Jan 12, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2011
  7. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question in Romans 3:1 would never have been raised unless Paul ALREADY previous to this question had proven some limitations. Instead, you avoid that implication altogether and simply deal with the non-limitations Paul provides. You are responding like a politician not an exegete. There is no dispute in the areas admitted to in Romans 3:2. The area of dispute has preceded Romans 3:1 just as the nature of the question demands. The subject of circumcision neither begins in Romans 3:1 or is dealt with in Romans 3:2 - so quit playing politics and be honest with the text.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>3. Romans 3:1 infers that in some sense there is NO "advantage" in being a Jew or there AND no "profit" in circumcision.

    >>Not to Romans living in Rome. Maybe to Jews living in Jerusalem.


    >Romans 3:1 is a rhetorical question posed by Paul to demonstrate he has proved his point in Romans 2:1-29 that in the day of judgment and under the law according to justification by works there is no advantage to being a Jew or profit to being circumcised simply because the Law's standard of GOOD ENOUGH works demands absolute sinlessness inside and outside.

    Interesting. The rabbis had a problem when the temple was destroyed and sacrifice for sins was no longer possible. The concluded that the instrument of forgiveness was one's repentance and restoration where possible. The sacrifices were only a representation of one's repentance, like "Baptist" baptism. In other words, rabbinical Judaism is not sacramental, more "baptist" than main line Christian are sacramental?
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In Romans 2 Paul introduces the surprising fact to the Jews - that Gentiles are going to heaven on the same basis as Jews.

    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.


    As I keep pointing out - This pre-Rom 3:1 ifnormation logically leads to the obvous question "Well then what advantage has the Jew" (as compared to the Gentile) in Rom 3:1.


    My emphasis on Rom 3:2 is by contrast to the idea that would suppose that "what advantage has the Jew" should have the answer "as we have just shown - no advantage at all".

    Rather Rom 3:2 says "great in every respect".

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #9 BobRyan, Jan 12, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2011
  10. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are acting like a politician rather than an exegete. If you had asked me the same questions I have asked you, I would have dealt with them directly and answered them explicitly. You avoid the questions and act like a Parrot repeating your same mantra. That is clear indication that your position contains only half-truths and you are afraid to come out in the light of day and deal with problems openly and honestly. There can be no true discussion when the other party simply side steps the questions and plays the politician.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Paul's response "GREAT in every respect" wiped out your entire argument for you were hoping that the answer to Rom 3:1 would be "none at all".

    Paul's Rom 2 comparison of saved Jews to saved Gentiles did away with the entire Jewish concept of "only saved based on family status as a Jew", which leads Paul to the obvious question "what advantage then IS there to be in the family status of Jew"? (Here is the point that addresses all of your questions at once!!)

    This again is an incredibly obvious transition.

    Your only response so far is to complain that "I notice it"??

    How is that supposed to be a compelling argument for the case you are building?

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #11 BobRyan, Jan 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2011
  12. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, why such an irrational response? Did you take the time to read what I said?? Don't you think I know what Paul said in Romans 3:2 as much as in Romans 3:1????? How in the world do you come up with the irrational idea that I was hoping the answer would be "none at all" when I can read the very next verse as well as you???????????? I would repeat what I said in my last response but that appears to have gone over your head (more likely you simply chose to ignore it). I will repeat and then rephrase it with hopes you will be able to understand what I said (or acknowledge what I said). Here is what I said:


    The question in Romans 3:1 would never have been raised unless Paul ALREADY previous to this question had proven some limitations. Instead, you avoid that implication altogether and simply deal with the non-limitations Paul provides. You are responding like a politician not an exegete. There is no dispute in the areas admitted to in Romans 3:2. The area of dispute has preceded Romans 3:1 just as the nature of the question demands. The subject of circumcision neither begins in Romans 3:1 or is dealt with in Romans 3:2 - so quit playing politics and be honest with the text.

    Now, to rephrase it for you. Of course there is an advantage to being a Jew and there is benefit in circumcision and that advantage is spelled out in the fact that they were given ADDITIONAL REVELATION from God.

    However, what you fail to admit and recognize is that Paul has proven from Romans 3:17-24 there is NO ADVANTAGE BEING A JEW UNDER LAW FOR JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT UNLESS ALL THE REST OF THE LAW IS KEPT IN EVERY OTHER POINT and in Romans 3:25-29 CIRCUMCISION IS OF NO BENEFIT UNDER LAW FOR JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT UNLESS ALL THE REST OF THE LAW IS KEPT IN EVERY OTHER POINT.

    Now, you will continue to ignore, distort and pervert these facts because if you do not your whole interpretation of this text is utterly destroyed.

    Dear Readers - Take note how Bob deals with my response here!
     
    #12 Dr. Walter, Jan 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...