ROMANS ROAD
to RIGHTEOUSNESS |
Romans
1:18-3:20
|
Romans
3:21-5:21 |
Romans
6:1-8:39 |
Romans
9:1-11:36 |
Romans
12:1-16:27 |
|
SIN
|
SALVATION
|
SANCTIFICATION |
SOVEREIGNTY |
SERVICE |
NEED
FOR
SALVATION |
WAY
OF
SALVATION |
LIFE
OF
SALVATION |
SCOPE
OF
SALVATION |
SERVICE
OF
SALVATION |
God's Holiness
In
Condemning
Sin |
God's Grace
In
Justifying
Sinners |
God's Power
In
Sanctifying
Believers |
God's Sovereignty
In
Saving
Jew and Gentile |
Gods Glory
The
Object of
Service |
Deadliness
of Sin |
Design
of Grace |
Demonstration of
Salvation |
|
Power Given
|
Promises Fulfilled |
Paths Pursued |
Righteousness
Needed |
Righteousness
Credited |
Righteousness
Demonstrated |
Righteousness
Restored to Israel |
Righteousness
Applied |
God's Righteousness
IN LAW |
God's Righteousness
IMPUTED |
God's Righteousness
OBEYED |
God's Righteousness
IN ELECTION |
God's Righteousness
DISPLAYED |
|
Slaves to Sin |
Slaves to God |
Slaves Serving God |
|
Doctrine |
Duty |
|
Life by Faith |
Service by Faith |
|
Modified from Irving
L. Jensen's excellent work Jensen's
Survey of the NT |
THEN WHAT: Ti oun:
This next section of Romans 3 is generally regarded as one of the most difficult in
the whole Epistle. But it will, as we spend work upon it, repay us,
Bunyan says:
Hard texts are nuts-I would not call them cheaters:
Whose shells do oft times keep them from the eaters.
John Piper said it this way...
My brain almost broke trying to
understand the complexity of that paragraph (Ro 3:1-8) (Piper, J.
Brothers, we are Not professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical
Ministry. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers)
By this time, the Jews who would read this letter were undoubtedly beginning to
become a
bit indignant with the apostle. They were saying to him, in effect
Look, the way you sound, it is as though these privileges that God has
given to us -- our great religious heritage -- really means nothing at
all. You are undervaluing our heritage. And also if there is no
partiality with God (Ro 2:11), what good is it to be Jewish?
Paul answers:
No, I am not; these things mean a lot. The Jews have been given a
position of privilege -- they were given the oracles of God; they were
entrusted with the message of God; they were chosen as the channel by
which God would communicate with the race -- and this is a tremendous
privilege.
Remember that Paul had just taught about circumcision
(Ro 2:25, 26, 27, 28, 29) and about the judgment of God falling without impartiality on
the Jew as well as the Gentile. In his exposure of Jewish pretension
(and religious moralists) in Ro 2:1, Paul wrote as if there were now no
more difference at all between Jew and Gentile ( e.g. Ro 2:9, 10, 26,
27, 28, 29). But
this would be to misunderstand his argument. Paul's purpose was to show
that Jews have no advantage with respect to Gentiles in regard to the judgment of
God simply because they are Jews. Paul knew that his argument could be misunderstood,
and thus in this section he adds a
detailed discussion at the conclusion of his exposure of the sin of the
religious but unsaved Jew (cp Ro 2:28, 29). In this section Paul proceeds to both affirm Jewish privileges
(see Ro 3:2) and delineate the nature and
limitations of those privileges. This issue would, of course, be of
particular concern to Jews and Jewish Christians but in view of the fact that it raises
questions of God's own consistency and reliability regarding circumcision
and the law.
John Piper
explains that Paul...
has said something that is very
provocative and that will not go unchallenged, namely, that some Jews
are not really Jews and some Gentiles can really be Jews, even if they
are not circumcised. The problem is that this seems to call into
question the special position of Israel as God’s chosen people. And that
means it would call into question the whole Old Testament. And if Paul’s
gospel does that, it will not stand. (Let
God Be True Though Every Man a Liar)
The first eight verses of Romans 3 can be interpreted as an "imaginary dialogue" that the apostle holds
with his Jewish detractors. The style Paul utilizes here is known as diatribe which
was a common method of teaching used by writers and instructors in
Paul’s time.
Diatribe () is a style of teaching used in ancient
philosophical schools, generally characterized by rhetorical questions
and imaginary interlocutors. And so to write in style (of diatribe) the
author engages in a dialogue with an imaginary opponent or questioner,
and the writing is addressed directly to this questioner (2nd person
instead of 3rd person).
Sometimes the “dialogue” is one-sided, and the
questions flow only from the pen of the writer. This is the case in
Ro 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (notes) and Ro 2:17-27
(notes), where Paul bombards the Jews with questions
specifically designed to undermine their false confidence wrongly based
on their special role in God’s plan.
At other times there is a true
dialogue as here in Ro 3:1-8. So to reiterate, in this section the
questions come from the imaginary Jewish objector, and Paul provides his
emphatic answers. This diatribe style surfaces in a few other places, but
it is especially prominent in Romans.
ADVANTAGE
HAS THE JEW?: to perisson tou Ioudaiou e tis: (Ro 2:25,
26, 27, 28, 29; Ge 25:32; Eccl 6:8,11; Isa 1:11, 12, 13, 14, 15; Mal
3:14; 1Cor 15:32; Heb 13:9)
Here is Paul's first question, based
upon the fact that he has just stated that physical Jews whose hearts
remain uncircumcised, are not really Jews, and in fact Gentiles who are
not physical Jews, can become like true Jews, those who believe the
Gospel and have experienced circumcision of their hearts. This being
Paul's conclusion, why then would being a Jew have any advantage over
Gentiles? In a sense, it seems Paul in offering this conclusion, calls
into question the entire OT teaching of the Jews being God's chosen
people (Dt 7:6, 7, 8, 9) and the divine blessing that accompanied their
status as chosen by God.
Advantage (4053)
(perissos) means first that which encircles a thing. Then that which
is in excess or over and above. And thus it means more than enough, superabundant
(in quantity), superior (in quality). It can convey the idea of that
which is not ordinarily encountered. The idea in this verse is "what is
the superiority of the Jew?"
More literally, the question is
"What does the Jew have over and above the Gentile?"
Here are the 13 uses of perissos
in the NT - Mt 5:37, 47; 11:9; Mk. 6:51; 7:36; 12:33, 40; Lk. 7:26;
12:4, 48; 20:47; Jn. 10:10; Rom. 3:1; 1Co. 12:23, 24, 15:10; 2Co. 2:7;
9:1; 10:8; Heb. 6:17; 7:15
Both of Paul's questions presuppose the standpoint of one who has hitherto assumed
that being a Jew is an advantage and that being circumcised is of value. It now (based on Ro 2, especially Ro 2:25,
26, 27, 28, 29-see
notes) looks as
if Paul is in danger of erasing a distinction which God has made (Jew
and Gentile). The
question is, if Jew and Gentile are on the same footing before God, what
then is the supposed advantage of being a Jew and what benefit is circumcision?
Dr. James Stifler asks...
“If circumcision in itself does not give
righteousness, if uncircumcision does not preclude it, what profit was
there ever in it? A distinction that God made among men seems, after
all, not to be one.”
This was not a frivolous objection. Today we would phrase the question
differently:
“If being affiliated with God’s people through such things
as baptism and church membership will not save us, and if having the
Word of God is not enough to ensure our salvation or holiness, what is
the advantage of being under the umbrella of the Church and
Christianity?”
As Paul proceeds to outline in Ro 3:1-20, there were substantial
advantages in being raised a Jew, and by way of application there are
definite
advantages (and responsibilities) to those who are raised in godly
families and doctrinally sound churches today. But ultimately each
individual must personally respond to the truth.
When Ray Stedman was a student at Dallas Theological
Seminary, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer told them he knew D. L. Moody and his
family intimately, and that, so far as he could tell, he saw no
indication in any of the Moody children that they ever came to know
Jesus Christ. Now, that is tragic, and yet even the
great evangelist Moody could not save his own children! Salvation is from God
Alone.
And His good pleasure in saving some and not others is a holy mystery.
Dunn says
The slightly agonized cry of Jewish self-identity responds in bewildered
protest” to the teaching of chapter 2. The protester’s thought is this:
“If being a Jew gives us no advantage over the Gentiles on Judgment Day,
then what’s the big deal about being a Jew at all? Have we just been
spinning our wheels for the last 2,000 years? Are the covenant and its
special sign — circumcision — God’s idea of a practical joke? Or is he
just now changing his mind about the Jews? Is he going back on his word?
What’s the use of being a Jew, then?
J Vernon McGee says that...
Now, this is the same question, I think, that we hear today. I get it
because the gospel that I preach says that church membership has no
advantage for salvation, that any rite or ritual you go through is
meaningless as far as salvation is concerned. God has the world shut up
to a Cross. (McGee,
J V: Thru the Bible Commentary: Nashville: Thomas Nelson)
OR WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF
CIRCUMCISION?: e opheleia tes peritomes:
Here is the second of Paul's two
questions.
Benefit (5622)
(opheleia from opheléo = to profit from ophéllo =
heap up) primarily denotes assistance then comes to describe the state
of having acquired an advantage or benefit. Determining “benefit”
was a common device among philosophers for evaluating the worth of a
behavior or idea.
Circumcision was practiced because it commanded in the
Law (Ge 17:10, 11, 12, 13, 14), and the very fact that the Jews had the special
revelation of God's law (oracles in the next verse) should have been a benefit to them. The
Law of course could not save, for one one could keep it. The advantage
of the Law was that their inability to keep it and to live up to
God's standards should have led the Jews to see their need for something more,
specifically the need for an internal circumcision by faith, even a faith like Abraham
which
resulted in his being reckoned as righteous before God (Genesis 15:6).
In that sense, Abraham was circumcised, externally and internally,
physically and spiritually.
Circumcision (4061)
(peritome from perí =
around + témno = cut off) (Click for more in depth word study of
peritome) refers literally to cutting
and removal of the foreskin. (See related discussion on
Circumcision)
(See Ro 2:27, 28, 29 -
notes
where Paul emphasizes the necessity of an
internal rather than an external circumcision)
The self-deception of the
Jews is reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen's story of the "The
Emperor’s New Clothes"
for like that emperor (who actually walked out with no clothes), the
Jews also imagined themselves to be "clothed" as it were with a
righteousness acceptable to God, when in fact they were quite "naked" in
this regard (cp the church at Laodicea - Re 3:17, 18-notes).
They were deluded by their misdirected, futile focus on religious works
all the while missing a real relationship with the Creator.
So Paul is functioning much like the little boy in the crowd who
unashamedly asked where the naked Emperor's "new" clothes were, his
question exposing their folly. In Romans 2 Paul had
stripped away the layers of Jewish delusion, addressing the "sacred
cows" the Jews were relying on for to get them into the kingdom of
heaven. They believed that because they possessed the Word of God they
were safe. They thought that because Abraham was their physical father
they were safe (Paul addresses this misconception in Romans 4, cp Jn
8:36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44). They saw
themselves as guides to the blind (Ro 2:19), correctors of the foolish
(Ro 3:20), teachers
of the immature (Ro 3:20). But Paul undressed them spiritually speaking, proving that having God’s Word
was no guarantee one had a genuine relationship with God. Paul also stripped away their
reliance on
physical circumcision thus demonstrating that their religious
affiliation, "Jew", would not save them.
As Paul in a sense "undressed" his fellow Jews, he also undressed all
who would ever read these passages, stripping away
all our false pride and confidence that says "We must be okay with God
since we have His Word and we go to the right
church." Paul is building his case to show that the true righteousness
which God accepts is a matter of the heart that believes God's gospel
and receives His Son's perfect righteousness (2Co 5:21, 1Co 1:30, Php
3:9-note,
Ro 1:17-note)!
As Paul had just taught (speaking specifically to the Jews) that a
man...
is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and
circumcision is circumcision of the heart (not a physical but a
spiritual circumcision - De 10:16, 30:6 Jer 4:4 Col 2:11,12-notes), by the Spirit, not by the
letter (see note
Ro 2:29,
cp 2Cor 3:6)
William Newell adds that...:
The importance of this great passage cannot be overestimated, for if the
Jew as that end of the dispensation, or any "religious" person at this
end, be allowed to plead special privilege or light as exempting him
from judgment, he will spiritually (of course not actually) escape the
general sentence of Ro 3:19, where "all the world" is brought under the
judgment of God. If a man escapes in spirit from God's pronouncement of
"guilty, " he will never truly rely upon the shed blood of the
Guilt-Bearer, Christ (1Pe 2:24, Mt 8:17, Isa 53:4, 5, 6, 11, John 1:29,
Heb 9:28, Ga 3:13, OT type - Lv 16:22)! (Romans
3: Devotional and Expositional)
College Press NIV Commentary nicely summarizes this section:
The discussion begins with a question about the role of the Jews in
God’s plan (Ro 3:1,2), then quickly moves on to the issue of the
character of God himself (Ro 3:3,4). The thought is that what Paul says
about the Jews in Romans 2 seems to nullify the apparent Jewish
privilege and exclusiveness enjoyed since Abraham’s day, and this in
turn calls into question the truthfulness and faithfulness of God.
Paul’s response leads to a series of somewhat frivolous questions which
may be interpreted as one last desperate attempt at Jewish
self-justification (Ro 3:5, 6, 7,8). (College
Press NIV commentary)
Denney explains:
It might easily seem, at this point, as if the apostle’s argument had
proved too much. He has shown that the mere possession of the
law does not exempt the Jew from judgment, but that God requires its
fulfillment. He has shown that circumcision in the flesh,
seal (cp Ro 4:11-note)
though it be of the covenant and pledge of its promises, is only of
value if it represents inward heart circumcision. He has, it may be
argued, reduced the Jew to a position of entire equality with the
Gentile. But the consciousness of the Jewish race must protest against
such a conclusion (Expositor's Greek Testament)
