Romans 3:28 - What is Paul Denying?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

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".

 

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.

 

Deleted own post - formatting problems.

 

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….

 

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.

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.

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