Romans 7:14-25

You could not handle it when I said two things, that I was a new creation and dead in the flesh. What are you going to do after reading all these scriptures?
I am a new creation, the old has gone the new has come!

The word of God says the old has gone. To say otherwise is to mock God. Alternately, speak for yourself that your old is not gone.

Maybe you do not understand it, but I understand it perfectly. That scripture stands alone with or without other scriptures. The meaning does not change.

Maybe you only got wet, but I was buried with him through baptism into death, I live a new life. You reveal much about yourself…very worldly to comment on the Word of God and say you just got wet in baptism and were not buried, as the scripture says. Do you think the scriptures are comical?

I can hardly believe what you are saying. You reply to scripture with mocking. You are like one who is always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. See 2 Timothy 3:7. You call what is spiritual symbolic. You have no idea. You say to me nothing supernatural has happened. Who speaks like this about scripture?

You continue to mock the scriptures from the word of God that I quote to you. I am only quoting scriptures! You are trying to make fun of the scriptures, and you think you are spiritual?

You are a liar to say I obey the lusts of my flesh and the pride of life, and lusts of my eyes. You have exposed yourself. You are full of sin and have not changed one bit. Stop trying to judge everyone by what you do.

Why would it be meaningless to me? Is it not meaningful to you, as all the other scriptures that I quoted that you only mocked.

You falsely accused me of the sins you still do. Just because you cannot fathom giving up sins and being done with the desires of the flesh, it does not mean no Christian has. You contradict scripture; you do not see it because you are so full of sin still. You have said it here yourself.

 

You live in a dream world. If the old nature is gone you would be sinless.
If you claim to be sinless you deny Christ and the truth is not in you. So which is it?
Paul said plainly: "The good the I would do, I don't." Why? It was his old nature that still dwelt in him that he gave into every once in a while. He plainly said: "It is sin that dwells in me," just as sin that dwells in you. Deny that and you deny the word of God.

The old what? If your reference is 2Cor.5:17 you are the one mocking God by not taking Scripture in context, and being one of those whom Peter describes:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--You have proven yourself unlearned concerning these Scriptures. Please be careful.

Scriptures do not stand alone. They stand within the context they are given. If you take them out of context you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say.
Example.
Psalm 14:1 "There is no God."

Here is a good example of a woman trying to find God's will by opening her Bible at random and allowing the first verse she reads to be God's will for her.
1. Judas went and hung himself.
2. Go and do thou likewise.
3. What thou doest do quickly.

Was that the will of God for that lady? You would say yes, because you pick and choose like she does, not taking regard for context!!

You were buried with him? Did Jesus descend from heaven and come and be physically buried with you? Did you see him, touch him? Please tell!
I think you are comical to take this so literal when it is obvious that it is symbolical. You can't explain that it is literal can you? Were you buried in a tomb with Jesus or not? Don't lie about it!!

Then tell me what supernatural thing happened to you? Is this when you got saved? Was it s a second blessing, when you spoke in tongues? Did you start to do miracles: heal the sick, raise the dead? What was supernatural? BTW, "supernatural" means "above the natural", or when the laws of nature are suspended, such as Jesus walking on water defying the law of gravity. The law of gravity was suspended. He defied it. He was above it. That is what supernatural is. What was supernatural about your baptism? Did you float more than a foot above the water, perhaps?

You continue to quote Scriptures without understanding as one who is unlearned and wresting them to your own destruction--very dangerous.
If you are dead, you can't type? True? So how are you dead? Figure it out. Just don't quote Scripture without meaning.

Do you know what the "pride of life is"? You just called me a liar. Whoops! I guess you failed in that one. You just exposed yourself in that one. You just showed yourself full of sin in that one. And you don't change. The Bible commands: "Judge righteous judgment." I just did. You have a sin nature and you just demonstrated to everyone on the board how it is manifested. A sinless person, one who does not have an old sin nature would never have done that.

1John2:1,2 and 1John 1:9 would be meaningless to you because you deny that you have an old nature. If you deny that you have an old nature you have no reason to sin. If you have no reason to sin, you must be sinless and would have no reason to confess your sins. Right?

The false accusation belongs to you which again demonstrates your old sin nature. To say that I "am so full of sin," is not a very good thing to say on the board is it? To say that I cannot fathom giving up sins is another false accusation. In fact I do go to the Lord and confess my sin, because I know that I do have a sin nature. I confess that I still have the desires of the flesh, part of the old nature. If you don't come to that place where you can confess the same you will find yourself in a lot of spiritual trouble. Don't think that I don't abhor sin; I do. But I also live a realistic life, which you don't. We all have two natures as Paul explained in Romans 7. At the end of Romans 7 he explained how the one can have victory over the other:

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--Every Christian must make this choice in life.
They either submit their mind to the Lord Jesus Christ, or allow their flesh to submit to sin. The latter is often the case because all of is have a sin nature.

 

I do not think this is a very strong argument. The use of this very general phrase "know ye not" in two different settings - Romans 6 and 7 in this case - is not really a strong enough basis to connect the two as treating the same subject. One can imagine Paul using such a common phrase in any of a wide range of settings.

Yes, Romans 7 follows Romans 6. But that is hardly a good reason to conclude that Romans 7 completes the same analysis started in Romans 6.

In fact, and I will return to this in other posts, Romans manifests a spiral structure, wherein Paul introduces a topic in one section of the letter, then addresses something else, only to return the first topic later.

We would need a much stronger argument to sustain the notion that Romans 7 is a continuation of an argument about a saved person, begun in chapter 6, carried on in chapter 7, and continued in chapter 8.

Again, if Romans is structured like a spiral -and it demonstrably is - then Paul could be talking about the Chistian in chapter 6, then talk about a non-believer in chapter 7, only to return to the believer in chapter 8.

 

Romans 7:1-5 proves he is still continuing to speak of a saved person. Romans 8:12-13 is the natural conclusion to the question asked in Romans 6:1.

 

Again, you mock the Word of God. I said my old nature is gone, that is scripture. You say if the old nature were gone, you would be sinless. You are not fighting and debating my words, you are fighting God’s words.

Paul did not merely say that, you are not quoting all of it. Paul says, “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” That is about an unsaved man. That is about a man living by the flesh, sinning, and thus having a sinful nature. In addition, you ADD to the scriptures, the scriptures do not say that Paul, after Jesus saving him, gave into his old nature “once in a while.” Stop adding to the word of God.

You are the one who denies the Word of God. Paul was speaking of himself before Jesus saved him. Stop trying to tell me what lives in me. I do not live in sin. I do not live pleasing my flesh of lusts. Speak for yourself.

You have proven yourself unlearned, nonspiritual, and full of sin. You have misunderstood Paul to your own destruction. You have correctly judged yourself as you have falsely judged me. You should be careful, for you are still living in sin, and you deny the Spiritual truth about being buried to help you overcome.

You are giving a ridiculous example. You try to teach me with milk, but I have some food for you, but you are not ready to eat, you spit it out.

Is this more of your milk?

You will not understand, because you are not spiritual. You mocked me when I quoted the scriptures about being baptized and buried. You mocked me about being dead in the flesh. I cannot continue to speak to you about spiritual things. You just cannot understand.

You continue to mock the word of God. I repeat scripture and you call it a lie.

My testimony is not for you to hear. The Bible warns about not letting what is sacred to be trampled. You show me here that you do not understand spiritual things, so why would I speak to you about my testimony?

You are the one in a very dangerous position. You admit you are full of sin. You also mock the scriptures. You mock the scriptures that say we are buried with Christ, and other scriptures you mock.

What would you call someone who falsely accused you of all sorts of sins you did not do? Would you not say they were lying, and bearing false witness? You said I was doing all kinds of sins, and none of those I do.

You are the one who cannot make a righteous judgment.

You think it is not a very good thing for me to say that on the board. YOU are the one who falsely accused me of not giving up the sins of the flesh! You cannot even see what you are saying. Everyone can read what you said to me, it was a lie about me that you are trying to force upon me. Here it is again, what you said to me: “You still obey the lusts of your flesh, the pride of life, and the lusts of your eyes.” Again, I do not do those things; it is a lie for you to say I do those things. You show us from what you say that you do those things. How can you say you have given up sins if you still do all those?

How long are you going to keep confessing the same old sins? How long have you been a Christian? Repenting means to give up something. You say I am in trouble because of my beliefs, it is you who is in spiritual trouble.

I do not have a realistic life. I admit that I am alien and stranger on earth.

The latter is often your case. You should only speak for yourself. Now that we have repeated much of this quite a few times, I will not reply to you again about this same thing. I have been falsely accused here by you, and you do not except the scriptures that speak of spiritual things. Again, I will not reply back about this same thing.

 

How does Romans 7;1-5 prove this? Here is the text:

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law (E)through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Yes, Paul here speaks of believers (those to whom he is writing) - Jews who have left the old way of the Law of Moses and are now Christians. But these believers are certainly not the "I" he describes later in the chapter. Or at least you cannot simply assume this.

There is an exegetical error that many people make - to assume that if we have a sections of text A followed by a section B and then a section C, and we know that A is about X, and we know that C is talking about X, then, therefore, B must also be talking about X. Things are not always this simple.

There is nothing here that compels us to see the "I" from later in the chapter as a believing Paul.

 

Don't you understand his point? He is not merely speaking to Jewish believers but all believers in Christ because the death of Christ frees all believers in Christ from the bondage and condemnation of the law. However, the law of marriage illustrates the point. The analogy is obvious. A married woman is not free from the law of marriage unless her husband dies. While he lives she is in bondage to him. Only by the death of his body is she set free from that law. So, likewise, we are set free from the condemnation of the law ONLY by the death of the body of Jesus Christ because the condemnation of the law has been fully satsifed in His death FOR US and thus sets us free from it.

To argue that Jews alone were under the condemnation of the law has already been proven wrong in Romans 3:9-20. The law of God that condemns all men to death because of sin is not restricted to Mosaic Law but to the Law of God regardless of its manifestation to men (Rom. 3:19-20). The gentile is "under sin" equally as the Jew (Rom. 3:9). The sin nature is equal to all men and there is "none, no, not one" it does not characterize (Rom. 3;10-18) so that "no flesh" escapes the condemnation of the Law of God and "every mouth" is shut by the law and "all the world" is condemned by the Law because God's law cannot be restricted merely to the Jewish manifestation or the Gentile manifestation.

Romans 7:1-6 proves two facts.

Fact number one is that the death of the body of Christ frees ALL BELIEVERS (justifies) from the condemnation of the law. - Rom. 7:1-3

Fact number 2 is that our freedom from the law through his death joins ALL BELEIVERS with his resurrected life which ALONE is the source and power for all the fruits/works of righteousness. - Rom. 7:4-6

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. .

This means the law never had any power to produce the fruits of righteousness in us while we were under it but rather only exposed our sinfulness and wrought death in us instead of life - Rom. 7:7-11 - because the law is holy and just and good but we are not - Rom. 7:12-13.


This means that the law even though written in the heats of all believers still has no power to produce the fruits of righteousness even though believers delight in it after the inward man because our whole person has not yet been delivered from death and sin as our body is still sold under sin and will die - Rom. 7:14-23

This means that the power to produce the fruits of righteousness in believers comes from the resurrected life of Christ by His indwelling Spirit and not from the Law without when we were lost or within when we became beleivers - Rom. 7:24-8:13.


It is the death of Christ that frees us from the condemnation of sin and it is the resurrected life of Christ that free's us from the indwelling power of sin.


The simple point of Romans 7-8:13 is that the Law OUTSIDE of man in his lost condition cannot produce works of righteousness and neither can the Law INSIDE of man in his saved condition cannot produce works of righteousness. It is the death of Christ that frees us from the condenmnation of sin and it is the resurrected life of Christ that delivers us from power of sin and produces fruits of righteousness through us.

 

Obviously Christians sin. But Romans 7 is not about Christians. What happens in Romans 7? Paul describes a man who is enslaved to sin who cannot do the good he wants to do.

A Christain enslaved to sin?

A Christian unable to do good?

Paul knows of no such animal. At the end of Romans 7, he asks "who will deliver me from this state?"

Answer: Jesus - the person who has Jesus, while they still sin, has certainly escapted the state the person in Romans 7 is in.

 

Even if this is so, it does not in any way support your position that that "I" in Romans 7 is a believer.

This marriage metaphor is notoriously tricky - its exact meaning is hardly obvious. But let's say your take on it is correct.

The fact that Paul is describing the believer at this point of the argument of Romans is not evidence that the "I" he introduces later must be a believer.

 

No. Only Jews were under the Law of Moses, of this there should be no doubt. Romans 3:9-20 establishes that the Gentile is no better than the Jew. But it does not contradict something that the Bible otherwise shows to be the case - that the Law of Moses is for Jews only.

When, in verse 19, Paul speaks of those "under the Law" he is talking about Jews, who, together with Gentiles form a mass of humanity that are in the pickle of being "accountable to God". You appear to believe that the Law of Moses was for Gentiles. Not only is there no case to support this, Paul quite clearly belives otherwise and demonstrates this later in the very same chapter:

Romans 3:28-29 demonstrate that Paul believes that only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses. Here is the text.​

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,...​

Consider this analogous version of the text, analogous in the sense that the exact same basic argument that Paul is making is applied in another setting:​

28 For we maintain that an employee should be promoted in a manner that does not depend on whether they adhere to rule X, 29 Or is the boss going to promote male employees only? Is he not also the promoter of female employees also? Yes, of female employees also,...​

I have been very careful to provide an analogy that is indeed a "proper" analogy. Challenge me on this, if you can.

Now: Do I really need to explain that "rule X" has to be a rule that only applies to men? I should not have to. If the writer expects the reader to believe that women are also subject to rule X (as well as men), he would expect the reader to also believe that women could be promoted by following it! Do you see the point? The point is this: If the writer believes the foregoing about the reader's beliefs, he would not refute his earlier claim about employees being promoted for reasons other than adherence to rule X by telling the reader something the reader already believes to be true if indeed all people are subject to rule X, namely that women can be promoted by obeying it! He would need to provide a different reason as to why employees are not promoted based on their following of rule X

Obvious conclusion: the writer believes, like his reader, that only men are subject to rule X.​

Now, translating back into the original text, Paul must see "the Law" as something that only Jews are subject to. Otherwise, verse 29 makes no sense! ​

 

Only Jews are under the Law of Moses - this is clear from the Old Testament and from Paul.

Yes, all men sin, but this not mean all men are under the Law of Moses.

 

I agree. But we have to deal with the obvious fact that Christians still sin. Obviously, the Christian cannot be enslaved to sin, unable to do good, as the person in Romans 7 is. But we still. So you and I have the task of making a case that says "even the old has gone, the Christian still sins".

 

Who said anything about the Law of Moses?

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Is the whole world Jewish?

 

Here is John 3:19-20

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Your argument here really cannot work for this reason: Paul, as an unbeliever describes himself as being passionate for the Law of Moses!

For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

It stretches credulity to believe that Paul is not including the Law of Moses in these "ancestral traditions". The Law of Moses was highly central to all Jews - one cannot drive a wedge between tradition and the Law; It is the Law that is at the centre of all (nearly all) Jewish tradition.

Also, in Phillipians, Paul says he was "blameless" according to the Law, while an unbeliever. Therefore, we can infer that he was passionate about following the Law. This, in turn, implies that he, in some sense at least, desired to fulfill the Law.

Since we have an unbelieving Paul (as a Jew) with a clear passion to keep the Law, we cannot therefore say the "I" in Romans 7 is a believer using the reasoning that "non-believing Jews cannot be passionate for the Law" (as the John text seems to suggest). Many of them clearly were. And we know that even today, non-believing orthodox Jews have great passion for the Law.

So what do we make of the John text? I suggest the following. Jesus is not speaking in a highly technical, perfectly accurate sense. His goal here is not to give an entirely unbiased, comprehensive treatment of the nature of the human person. He is using a kind of poetic licence - emphasizing the connection between the evil of men and their rejection of the gospel.

I suggest that Paul, on the other hand, is performing a more nuanced, detailed analysis of the unbeliever in Romans 7, recognizing that while such a person is enslaved to sin they can at least recognize and embrace the desireability of doing the Law of Moses. Jesus, on the hand, is talking in generalities.

But, even if the above does not convince, there is another problem with your argument. I will address this in the next post.

 

Here is the John text again:

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

And in Romans 8, we have this statement:

because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;

You correctly point out that the person described in these texts, whom we agree is an unbeliever, seems to hate the things of God. And yet the person in Romans 7 delight in the Law of God. So you conclude that the person in Romans 7 cannot be a non-believer, since a non-believer, based on these other texts, hates the things of God.

This seems like a good point but there is a problem. Let me summarize your argument:

1. The unbeliever hates the things of God (John 3 text, Romans 8 text);
2. The person in Romans 7 delights in the things of God (Romans 7)
3. Therefore, the person in Romans 7 cannot be an unbeliever.

But I could mount a structurally similar argument thus:

1. The person in the John 3 and Romans 8 text does evil more or less exclusively (for their deeds were evil).
2. The person in Romans 7 also does evil more or less exclusively (For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want).
3. The person in Roman 7 cannot be a Christian because it is unbelievers who habitually do evil, not believers.

This demonstrates the problem:

Your argument leverages a difference in attitude to establish a believer/non believer distinction (between Romans 7, on the one hand, and the other texts on the other.

My argument leverage an equivalence of behaviour to establish no such distinction.

Therefore, things cannot be as simple as you seem to think.

 

I will need about 3 posts to respond to this. Here is the intro post:

Consider this text from Romans 3:

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Like many, many other texts, this text manifests an interesting property: The way it reads depends on pre-suppositions you bring to your reading of it. For example, if you come to the text believing that this “Law” is something universal to all mankind, you can, leverage that pre-supposition, perfectly legitimately see this text as consistent with your view. However, if you come to the text believing that the “Law” is something for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses), you can also perfectly legitimately see this text as endorsing such a view.

In other words, the text itself works with both these points of view. Since I believe that the “Law” here is the Law of Moses (for Jews only), I will proceed as follows:

1. I will argue that the text does not, in any way, subvert my position (this is effectively making the case that the text is consistent with my position, even though it may also be consistent with other, competing views – as discussed above);

2. Presuming that argument 1 works, I will then make the case that not only is the text consistent with my view, evidence exists from the broader context that actually supports my view.

 

Part 2 of a 3 part argument responding to this:

The key to establishing the plausibility that “Law” here is the Law of Moses that applies to Jews only is to argue against the notion that even though the whole world is found guilty in this small chunk of text, this “Law” is not the ground for all of them being found guilty. I should not have to remind the reader of the following: Just because a discussion of the guilt of the whole word is discussed in very close proximity to a discussion of an unspecified law, and though it is tempting to think that this “Law” must be the basis for all the world being found guilty – after all, that’s what laws do, they find people guilty - it is possible that this is not the case. This “argument from proximity” is simply not correct – language is more sophisticated than this. “Close” may count in horseshoes and hand-grenades, but not always in language.

We proceed by assuming that “Law” here is a law for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses). Can the text sustain such a reading. Remember, I am not trying to give positive evidence for this - for the present I only argue that the text can work with such a position.

Clearly, Paul is saying the whole world is accountable – found “guilty” in some sense. However, suppose this text is embedded within a broader argument as follows:

1. Paul first mounts argument A: Jews are guilty of breaking the Law of Moses;

2. Paul then mounts argument B: Gentiles are no better – while they do not violate the Law of Moses (since they are no more subject to that law than is a Canadian subject to American law), they still “sin” in the sense of violating a general moral conscience that is given to all humanity;

3. Paul next wants to summarize these arguments by saying that the Jew is guilty in the specific way the Jew is deemed guilty (that is, by the Law of Moses), and the Gentile is also guilty in the specific way the Gentile is deemed guilty (universal moral law). But, and this is the key, where is Paul in his argument at this particular point in the argument? He has just finished Argument B – a treatment of the Gentile. So what does he need to do? He needs to remind the reader about the earlier argument about the Jew being guilty before God – argument A. So he effectively writes this:

Having just argued that the Gentile is guilty, I remind you that the Law of Moses (for Jews only) also has condemned the Jew, so that now we have a situation where the whole world is guilty before God; because no Jew can be justified by the Law of Moses, it can only point out their sin.

This is, I assert, entirely consistent with what Paul actually writes. It begs the question to claim that if Paul wanted to refer to the Law of Moses, he would necessarily have explicitly identified it as such. Why does this beg the question? It does so precisely because Paul uses the term “the law” in other places – not least later in this same chapter - to refer to the Law of Moses.
​

So that is the argument – if the two verses are indeed set in argument with the flow and sequence I have supposed, then the term “Law” can indeed refer to the Law of Moses.

A word of caution. You may well still think the grammar and structure of the two sentences in verses 19 and 20 force us to conclude this law is for the whole world. Well, please make your case – but do not presume what you should be making a case for. By the same token, to hold myself to the same standard, I need to do more than simply assert an equivalence between my “re-worked” version of these two verses and what Paul actually wrote (see the last half of point 3).

We will both have a hard job – the rules of language are complex. And in particular, the proper way to “parse” a certain statement (or a couplet of two sentences as in this case) often depends on the context. My sense is that an objective reader will indeed “see” the legitimacy of the equivalence I have drawn.

In a next post, I will make the case that the “Law” here in verses 19 and 20 must be the Law of Moses (presuming, of course, that in the present post, I have shown how this is at least plausible).

 

Your attempt breaks down and fails in point one! The text does not merely say their "deeds are evil" but it explicitly says "LOVED DARKNESS" and "HATES THE LIGHT" synonmous with Romans 8:7-8 where they are at "enmity" with God and not "subject to the law of God."

 

There is no possibility that this text can be restricted to Jews and Jewish law only. The immediate context will not permit it.

1. Both Jew and Gentile are under consideration as both are said to be EQUALLY “under sin” – v. 9

2. Romans 3:10-18 characterizes what it means to be “under sin” for both Jew and Gentile.

3. Romans 3:19-20 is inclusive of all who are “under the law” and both Jews (Rom. 2:17-22) and Gentiles (Rom. 2:14-15) have both been proven to be “under the law” of God whether by Moses or by Conscience.

4. Romans 3:19-20 uses UNIVERSAL language
a. “every mouth” NOT “every Jewish mouth”
b. “no flesh” NOT “no jews”
c. “ALL the world” NOT “all Israel”

5. The Righteousness of God is revealed more than by Mosaic Law – Rom. 3:21-22 – or else Paul cannot say “THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE; for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God” – Rom. 6:23

a. If the Gentiles were not “under law” they could not be “under sin” for sin is the transgression of the law and thus THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE!

b. The redemption in Romans 3:25-26 is not restricted to Jews only and therefore “THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE” for both Jew and Gentile has violated “the law of God.

CONCLUSION: The “law of God” equals “the righteousness of God” and that is manifested by both Moses and Conscience.

The Law of Moses cannot be restricted to merely Jews in regard to "moral righteousness" because God made all mankind "upright" or according to a righteous standard. The law that says "thou shalt not kill" had preceded Moses (Gen. 9:3-4) and moral law is inseparably united (James 2:10-11).

 

What you are failing to see and understand is that the "righteousness of God" is the basis for all moral law. God made mankind (not merely the Jew) "upright" or according to a moral standard of righteousness.


Hence, the righteousness of God is not restricted to one kind of revelation.

1. The gospel reveals the righteousness of God - Rom. 1:17

2. The Mosaic law reveals the righteouness of God - Rom. 2:11-13

3. The Conscience reveals the righteousness of God - Rom. 2:14-15

The ultimate "law" of God is God's own glory - "For THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE for ALL have sinned and come short of THE GLORY OF GOD"

Furthermore, the righteousness of God manifested in the Mosaic Law is nothing more or less than a revelation of the same righteousness manifested in the gospel, the conscience or in moral human laws. Hence, "the law" in Romans 3:19-20 comprehends all "law" that reveals "THE GLORY OF GOD" or the "RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD" and that is precisely why "ALL THE WORLD" has violated it and that is precisely why "every mouth" is stopped by it and why there is "NO FLESH" justified by it because it is the SAME law, SAME righteousness revealed in various ways - the righteousness of God.

The man in Romans 7:22 that delights in "the law of God after the inward man" is a saved person as no lost person delights in God's righteousness but hates the light, loves darkness, is at enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God.