Romans - January 28, 2008

Section - Two; Condemnation -- Romans 1:18-3:20 continued

XI. {Rom 3:9-20} All mankind knows they are worthy of God’s wrath, including the Jews.

A. Introduction
1. Review — In this section (1:18-3:20 Paul is establishing all mankind has earned God’s wrath. The Jews, knew they were God’s chosen tribe (social division), thus, they rejected Paul’s position they were going to received God’s wrath in the measure as the Gentiles.
2. Preview — Paul gives the Jew the shocking news their having the oracles of God (Law of Moses) did not protect them from God’s wrath.

B. Question For Discussion?
1. Why did having the oracles of God not make the Jews better than the Gentiles, thus, immune from God’s wrath/condemnation?

C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. What does 3:9 suggest the Jews felt about Paul’s argument they were unrighteousness [cf. 1:18]
a. They alone had received, thus, knew the Law of Moses, therefore, they alone were righteous for they alone knew the mind of God.

2. What is the general source for verses (3:10-18)?
a. The oracles of God

3. What point is Paul making in verses (3:10-18)
a. (3:19) The oracles of God make it clear those having the oracles of God were worthy of receiving God’s wrath if they failed to follow the oracles of God

4. PONDER: Why did the Jew’s having the oracles of God (3:19) close every mouth and make the world accountable?
a. The Jew’s claimed they had the oracles of the True God, thus, the mind of God was available to any (including Gentiles) seeking Jehovah God, thus, all were prevented them from saying, “I did not know.”
(1) Gentiles knew there was a God, and by going to the Law of Moses they could find God, thus, were without excuse [Rom 1:18-19]
(2) Any comparing the oracles the Jews claimed came from the True God with the oracles from other gods could tell what was from Jehovah God and from god’s of mankind [cf. Rom 1:20-27].

5. What is Paul referring to in (3:20) with the word “flesh”?
a. Not physical “flesh” for “flesh” is neutral, neither good or bad.
b. The part of man that enjoys sin, the part of man controlled by physical desires — mankind’s sinful aspect, the outward man {cf. Rom 13:14; 6:6; Gal 5:17,24}

6. What does “works [deeds] of Law” mean [3:20]?
a. Works [deeds] required by an expressed and binding will— i.e. any law of merit of which the Law of Moses is best known.

7. Based on the evidence presented in (3:10-18) why is flesh (the outward man) not justified by doing the works required by any law of merit, be it God’s or man’s.
a. Ones originally being addressed by quoted passages were at that time serving God, via works of the Law, with the outward man but not the inward man — thus, God did not hear them {cf. Isa 59:1-2}

8. Based on what could be seen in nature all could know God existed, but the Jews had something extra what was it and what did it do for the Jew that others did not have?
a. The Jews, having the oracles of God, had a perfect knowledge of sin.
b. After the Gentiles discover there was a God they had to seek Him and His will, not so the Jews for they were the keepers of the oracles of God.

9. PONDER: What makes the “work or deed” of baptism of Christ’s Law [Gal 6:2; 1Co 9:21] different than a work of the Law of Moses or any other law of merit?
a. Christ’s baptism is for the benefit of inward man (conscience) not the outward man [Rom 6:4; 1Pe 3:21].
b. A person refusing to be baptized for it does not make sense or is not a necessary part of salvation is still being controlled by the outward man.

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — Why did having the oracles of God not make the Jews better than the Gentiles, thus, immune from God’s wrath?
1. Based on the recorded history, known and recited by all Jews, God’s special people, based on their actions, did not respect God’s will as recorded in the Old Testament.
2. The Jew’s desire (all mankind’s desire as seen beginning with Adam) was to please the flesh beyond God’s allow limits, thus, they (some) used the oracles of God only as the means to define sin — not the means to be justified as was God’s reason for giving them the Law of Moses.

A LOOK AHEAD
E. Conclusion

F. Application

G. PONDERING: This is a section establishing all people have earned condemnation {1:18-19}. What are your thoughts, based on this section, about those not hearing the Gospel of Christ being able to use their lack of hearing as an excuse, thus, will not be judged worthy of God’s wrath?

SEGUE: Paul has laid the foundation that all are worthy of God’s wrath, thus, in the next section [3:21-5:21] he establishes how one is justified — i.e., what one can do to not receive God’s wrath.

The Book of Romans
III. Justification (3:21- 5:21)

1. Section Preview — [3:21-5:21] Paul has established both Jew, with the Law of Moses, and the Gentile, without the Law of Moses, have earned condemnation. Based on the evidence Paul has produced the best any person can say is, “My knowledge of right and wrong has informed me I have fallen short of always doing right, thus, I am a person having earned condemnation; a person requiring God’s justification.”...
a. In this section (Rom 3:21-5:21) Paul makes clear God’s means or plan of Justification.
b. Paul’s target audience is for the most part not Jews or gentiles who have accepted the gospel plan of salvation but “Judaizing Christians”, those making the gospel of Christ an addendum to the Law Of Moses...
i. When he dealt with un-believing Jews he used the Old Testament prophets to show Christ was the one the men of old were seeking.
ii. When he dealt with un-believing gentiles he showed them Christ was superior to the gods they worshiped.
c. While the “Judaizing Christians” was the target audience it was important for the Gentiles who were baptized believers to be aware of the problem so they could resist the influence of the Judaizing Christians.
i. Paul’s information also gives the Jews who had accepted the gospel as the “New Law” replacing the “Old Law” tools to know their position was correct (valid).
2. Justification defined — Act of God declaring a person free from the guilt of their sin, thus, acceptable to God — freed of the earned spiritual consequences of their sin (condemnation).

I. {Rom 3:21-26} Justification from God is rooted in God’s righteousness
A. Introduction
1. Review — The “Condemnation Section” is the foundation for “Justification”
2. Preview — Mankind’s efforts produced condemnation, God’s provides justification.

B. Question For Discussion — What specifically (root cause) keeps God’s judicial wrath toward mankind’s ungodliness and unrighteousness in check — preventing it from being poured out on the condemned?

C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion and Understanding...

1. What is the definition of the following words...
a. Law
b. (3:24) “justified”
c. (3:25) “propitiation”
d. (3:25) “righteousness” - The quality or state of being morally sound; the condition acceptable to God.
e. (3:25) “remission” [KJV], “passed over”
f. (3:25) “forbearance”

2. (3:21) To what “law” (law of merit or Law of Moses) is Paul referring?

3. (3:21) What is the significance of “without”[KJV] or “apart”[ASV, NASB]?

4. (3:21) What is meant by “witnessed by the Law and the Prophets”?.

5. PONDER: If God’s Law of merit (e.g., Law of Moses) cannot prevent God’s judicial wrath why do you think God provide mankind with a divine law?

6. (3:21-22) What is the evidence offered that God is morally sound (righteous)?

7. PONDER: What do you think is significance of the contrast between salvation by the way of law (merit) and salvation by the way of faith in Jesus the Christ?.

8. (3:22-25) What reasons are given to support the position “righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ” shows God is morally sound (righteous)?

9. PONDER: Do you think God, by “passing over sins previously committed” [3:25] God was indifferent to sin — i.e., Can a morally pure God tolerated some sin and still remained morally pure? If not why not?

10. What does our passage say is the fruit or consequences of God’s righteousness?

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — What specifically (root cause) holds God’s judicial wrath toward mankind’s ungodliness and unrighteousness in check — preventing God’s judicial wrath from being poured out on the condemned?
1.

E. Conclusion —

II. {Rom 3:27-30} All are justified by faith not works.

Romans - January 21, 2008

Section - Two: Condemnation -- Romans 1:18-3:20

7. If there is a conflict in the matter of rightness and wrongness between God and man who is always wrong?
a. (v.4) Man not God.

8. (v.5)When Paul says he is speaking in human terms [v.5] what does he mean?
a. He is making a sound logical argument that is accepted by all humans...
(1) Argument is not made based on personality, or position.

9. (v.5) What does it mean when one is “unrighteousness” or “righteousness”?
a. unrighteousness — G93. adikia; injustice of a judge (legal term); moral wrongfulness (of character, life or act)
b. righteousness — G1341. dikaiosune; 1) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting. 2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due.

10. What must one who is righteousness do to demonstrate his righteousness in the face of unrighteousness? (cf. Pro 17:15; 18:5; 24:23; Joh 7:24)
a. Be a fair judge, thus, pass judgment (sentence) according to the law.

11. Based on Paul’s answer to the rhetorical question of (v.5) what answer did he expect to expect to receive.
a. God is not unrighteous (“unfair”) when he applies His judicial wrath.

12. (v.6-8) What two arguments does Paul presents to support the position God’s punishment does not make God unrighteous?
a. (v.6) Logical or abstract — Righteousness includes punishing wrongness.
b. (v.7-8) An example — The error of their thinking (talk) versus their action (walk) is shown. From the Jewish readers (LOM followers) point they are sure Paul is teaching error, i.e., teaching LOM has been replaced [cf. 3:20-21]), thus, if they say or do nothing against Paul, who is a Jew, (as they would expect God to do nothing toward them if they were teaching error because they are Jews (cf. 2:3-4]) then, it would just show they are very righteous — in fact they would say Paul’s evil is really advancing good [cf. 6:1]. However, by their actions toward Paul, who they think is doing evil, they show they know evil does not bring good, thus, evil must receive God’s judicial wrath.

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — Is God breaking His covenant with Abraham’s descendants if God’s wrath (judicial punishment) is applied to the Jews? NO.
1. While there is an advantage to being part of the nation of Israel (being a Jew) it does not mean the Jew is not guilty, thus, not deserving of God’s judicial wrath. Based on sound human logic the Jews are guilty of being faithless, thus, are not above the application of God’s judicial wrath.
a. The one judging (sentencing) the evil person is not an evil person.
b. The Jews, by their actions of judging Paul a sinner, recognize doing evil does not make good happen.

E. Conclusion — Context: Section (1:18-3:20) addressing condemnation not justification.
1. At this point Paul does not list the advantage of being part of the nation of Israel, i.e., being part of the Jewish nation, except to show them the nation being special does not put the nation above Gods’s judicial wrath because of the nation’s unfaithfulness, i.e., the nation’s unbelief as seen in their actions...
a. The common thinking among many today that the Jew’s advantage means a different plan of salvation for the Jews or a second chance for the nation of Israel to accept Christ as deity at some point in the future is to read what is not written in the text.

F. Application
1. Does Paul’s argument concerning the Jews (God’s chosen people) receiving God’s wrath shed any light on TULIP doctrine of the “Perseverance of Christians”?
a. This doctrine teaches (at least implies) the more we sin the more God forgives for God’s grace is without limits because the saved cannot sin enough to be lost. While God’s grace is without limits, based on God’s dealing with His chosen people, His patience does have a limit.
b. By definition God’s “righteousness” also includes punishment for those not obeying the laws a person is living under.
2. PONDER: What in Rom 3:3 implies the nation of Israel (the Jews) are not condemned as a nation, thus, it is logical to accept the position they will not be saved as a nation, but as individuals?
a. “Some” informs not all were faithless. This is developed in chapters 9-11.

XI. {Rom 3:9-20} All mankind knows they are worthy of God’s wrath, including the Jews.
A. Introduction

Romans - January 14, 2008

Section -Two; Condemnation __ Romans 1:18-3:20

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — What prevents obedience to an act commanded by God from accomplishing God’s stated purpose for the command?
1. Problem with the Jew’s obedience to the act of circumcision is they considered this physical act proved to God and everybody else they were God’s people.
a. Were focusing on physical act rather than purpose of act — i.e., was an act of obedience not a physical “mysterious or exoteric” act that saved.
2. Failed to grasp while a physical act was required to be part of God’s family it also required one to inwardly accept the responsibility of being part of God’s family; required one to walk different that those who were not part of God’s family.
E. Conclusion — Context: Building on previous paragraph; this is a section of condemnation not justification; Showing the Jew (God’s chosen) are also contemned.
1. Circumcision separated the believers of God (Law of Moses followers) from being only “believers” and being “God’s people”.
a. Not the act of circumcision but the attitude toward circumcision, i.e., not the circumcision but reason (attitude of obedience) for being circumcised.
F. Application — Likewise baptism separates believers from being only believers (Acts 10; Acts 19:3), thus, being saved from their sins.
1. Baptism does not remove one’s sins, obedience to Christ’s plan of salvation removes one’s sins — obedience to the command to be baptized saves one by grace [cf Act 2:21, 37-38]
2. Baptism for remission of sins is without value if one does not continue doing God’s will. [cf. Act 8:13,22]
3. Those with the correct attitude toward obedience will not stop at baptism but will rise to walk a new lifestyle committed to Christ.
4. PONDER: Is it possible for the “Five Acts of Worship” to become as had circumcision i.e., no more than our proof we are of Christ? Why that answer?
a. Yes! When we dwell on the doing more than on the why we are doing; i.e., doing because of peer pressure or guilt not because of love and appreciation for Christ and his mission.
b. How can one develop love and appreciation for Christ?
(1) Prayer and study.

X. {Rom 3:1-8}God’s Righteousness Does Not Prevent Jew’s (Nation) Punishment/Condemnation.
A. Introduction
1. Review — Paul’s purpose in this section (Rom 1:18-3:20) is to show all mankind has earned condemnation, thus, have earned God’s judicial wrath — even God’s chosen people, the Jews — for they were guilty of inconsistency in not really keeping the Law inwardly, even though they might adhere to the letter of the Law.
2. Preview — Paul presents argument showing the Jew’s should expect to receive God’s wrath, i.e., they too are worthy of God’s condemnation.
B. Question For Discussion?
1. Is God breaking His covenant with Abraham’s descendants if God’s wrath (judicial punishment) is applied to the Jews?
C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. What is the Jew’s advantage, as seen in the fact they are circumcised?
a. (Gen 17:10-11) They have a special relationship or covenant with God.
2. What is the meaning of “the oracles of God”?
a. {ACT 7:38; HEB 5:12; 1PE 4:11] (used only four times) The mind of God revealed to man, most notable the Law of Moses, but all the words God has revealed to man via His spokesmen.
3. Why is having God’s oracles an indicator of the Jew’s advantage?
a. (Deu 4:5-8) They alone had a hard copy of what God expected from His creation (God’s desires, rules in written form).
4. What does the answer to the rhetorical question of 3:3 inform the Jew about their advantage with God?
a. The Jew’s faithless does not make God faithless — the Jew still had an advantage.
5. PONDER: Can the Jew successfully refute Paul’s charge they have ever been unfaithful to God?
a. Old Testament prophets accused them of being faithless; 70 years of captivity; God’s four-hundred years of silence between Malachi and God’s words to Zacharias, John the Baptizer’s father [Luk 1:8f] and etc, are historical facts that cannot be denied.
6. PONDER: (v.3) Based on context (Condemnation of all) do you think Paul is making reference to the greatest act of unbelief by the Jews, the rejecting of Jesus as the Christ (Luke 23:23; John 19:19-22)?
a. Paul may have been making reference to the rejecting of Jesus as the Christ. However, I do not think so. Paul in this section on Condemnation has not addressed why it was necessary for Christ to die, much less the concept the Jews had to kill Jesus for such was planned when time began so mankind could receive salvation. Do not find support for the position the Jews are suggesting it is wrong to condemn them for doing what enabled God to be righteous, their killing Jesus. This section is proving all men are sinners, even those Jews (those of the nation of Israel) who accepted Jesus as the Christ; not how one is Justified.
7. If there is a conflict in the matter of rightness and wrongness between God and man who is always wrong?

Romans - January 7, 2008

Section -- Two; Condemnation -- Romans 1:18-3:20

IX. {Rom 2:25-29} Physical obedience is not sufficient to prevent God’s wrath
A. Introduction
1. Review — The Jews were convinced they were not condemned for they had the Law, they alone knew the mind of God, thus, they could not be condemned.
2. Preview — Contrary to the Jew’s belief Paul informs the best known physical act of the Jewish people did not prevent a Jew from being condemned, i.e., did not make a Jew God’s people; this act of obedience did not mean they were not condemned.

B. Question For Discussion?
1. What prevents obedience to an act commanded by God from accomplishing God’s stated purpose for the command?
C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. (v.25) Was Paul accusing the Jew of not being sinless — i.e., their problem was they were sinners ?
a. NO! That goes without saying [cf. 3:20]; Paul is accusing them of flagrant misconduct, which was known both to themselves and the heathen.
b. The Jew’s lifestyle had caused “circumcision” to become a synonym for Romans 1:18-32.

2. Was circumcision a physical act or a spiritual act?
a. Was a physical act with spiritual ramification [v.28]


3. According to our passage (v.25-29) when is an uncircumcised person treated as circumcised?
a. When he obeys the requirements of the Law. Does not mean he must obey requirement to be circumcised for his “uncircumcison is only regarded as circumcision” — i.e., it is not circumcision [v.26-27]

4. PONDER: (v.26) If one’s heart is right, i.e., has “heart faith”, yet, was not circumcised he was considered circumcised. Since baptism has taken the place of circumcision as indicator one is of God, thus, if one has “heart faith”, i.e., he lives a good moral life and serves God to best of his understanding of what pleases God, he will be considered baptized. If not why not? (Support you answer with scripture.)
a. Gentiles had not been commanded to be circumcised, therefore they broke no law. Such is not so with baptism for sin remission [Mar 16:16; Act 2:38; 10:28; 22:16; 1Pe 3:21].

5. What is required by those having access to [knowing] God’s will and being circumcised to prevent them from being condemned by those not knowing God’s and will and not being circumcised?
a. Must walk the talk, not just talk the walk. [v.29]

6. [v.27,29] Is Paul teaching strict obedience to the Law is not necessary, as seen in act of circumcision, to please God, i.e., God looks at hearts not physical acts?
a. No. This is a section on condemnation not justification, thus, Paul is not addressing what one must do to be justified (saved) but why one is condemned who bases his salvation on outward obedience. Doing the right act for the wrong reason is the same as not doing the act — must do the right act for the right reason.

7. (v.29) Was Paul saying it was not important for the Jew to keep the letter of the law?
a. The physical keeping of the law was important but the attitude was more important.

8. What had become the problem with Jew’s action of circumcision?+
a. Being circumcised was no more than a physical act to receive praises from peers (make one acceptable by fellow Jews) with little concern for God’s praise — praise requiring inward obedience to God’s commands
b. (Mat 23:23-26) Outward and inward man must do the things of the law.
OBSERVATION: [Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25] Paul is not telling Jews in Roman anything new. God never considered circumcision to be only a physical act — an act without inward ramifications.

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — What prevents obedience to an act commanded by God from accomplishing God’s stated purpose for the command?