The nation of Israel was given the Law,and it was never given to the the Gentiles

[Sinthesis]

Some people may be misunderstanding the meaning of this verse.

Rom 3:21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;​

This verse is simply saying that God's promised plan of salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ is pointed to by the law and prophets. Thus it is Christ who fulfills the law and prophecy.

 

[smaller]

Some people may be misunderstanding the meaning of this verse.

Rom 3:21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;This verse is simply saying that God's promised plan of salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ is pointed to by the law and prophets. Thus it is Christ who fulfills the law and prophecy.

Thanks for making the obvious point. One can not deny the witness of the plan of Salvation by the Author of same.

It was in fact THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST who spoke through the Prophets and that is 'inclusive' of THE LAW of MOSES.

One can NOT logically DENY the Words of their supposed Savior and simultaneously make claim to same. '

Such understandings make no sense whatsoever.

1 Peter 1:
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

To deny the Spirit of Christ who SPOKE in the Law and the Prophets is in fact A DENIAL OF JESUS HIMSELF.

s

 

[Sinthesis]

Thanks for making the obvious point. One can not deny the witness of the plan of Salvation by the Author of same.

It was in fact THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST who spoke through the Prophets and that is 'inclusive' of THE LAW of MOSES.

One can NOT logically DENY the Words of their supposed Savior and simultaneously make claim to same. '

Such understandings make no sense whatsoever.

1 Peter 1:
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

To deny the Spirit of Christ who SPOKE in the Law and the Prophets is in fact A DENIAL OF JESUS HIMSELF.

s

I'm not exactly sure what you are raging against, but you seem to be confusing the Creator with the created.

 

[jasoncran]

Some people may be misunderstanding the meaning of this verse.

Rom 3:21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
​

This verse is simply saying that God's promised plan of salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ is pointed to by the law and prophets. Thus it is Christ who fulfills the law and prophecy.

it always was by faith. the law didnt save you at all. i can post the verses on that.

moses said circumise the foreskin of your heart and be ye no more stiffnecked.

abraham believed first then was and did the circumision. funny aint it how that worked.

noah a gentile found grace, moses and others spoke of his mercy.

 

[smaller]

I'm not exactly sure what you are raging against, but you seem to be confusing the Creator with the created.

A. Not raging

B. Read the thread header

C. Read the engagement of scriptural facts regarding the thread header

And confusing the Creator with the created? Do you really think you actually saw that anywhere in any of my posts?

lol

s

 

[Drew]

The Law witnesses to what 'you' personally, not GOD are trying to claim.

God is not in need of righteousness apart from LAW. God has never changed. Your claim is therefore invalid.

My claim is not invalid, and is in fact supported by the overall argument that Paul is making.

It is a mistake to argue thus, as you do:

1. God does not need to be declared "righteous";
2. Therefore the text cannot be addressing the righteousness of God.

Land's sakes man, the Bible is full of accounts of God's righteousness!!!

The text is addressing how God has been faithful to His promises - He has righteously fulfilled His covenant promises to Israel, but has done so specifically through her Messianic representative, Jesus.

Look at how chapter 3 opens;

Then what [a]advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that (A)they were entrusted with the (B)oracles of God. 3 What then? If (C)some [b]did not believe, their [c]unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 (D)May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found (E)a liar, as it is written,

“(F)THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU [d]ARE JUDGED.†5 But if our unrighteousness [e](G)demonstrates the righteousness of God, (H)what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? ((I)I am speaking in human terms.) 6 (J)May it never be!

This is all about God's own righteousness, not a righteousness that we get.

And so it is at the end of the chapter: God has demonstrated His righteous fidelity to the covenant through sending Jesus to die for all mankind, not just Jews. Paul is tying into the fact that Israel was destined to be a blessing for the whole world. In Jesus, acting specifically as Israel's Messianic representative, that promise has come true.

And thus we happily discern the righteousness of God.

 

[Drew]

Some people may be misunderstanding the meaning of this verse.

Rom 3:21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
​

This verse is simply saying that God's promised plan of salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ is pointed to by the law and prophets. Thus it is Christ who fulfills the law and prophecy.

I basically agree, but I would further emphasize the Israel connection as follows:

1. God entered into a covenant with Israel, promising that she would be a blessing to the entire world;

2. The nation of Israel did not really fulfill her end of the covnenant - like all mankind, she has been "unrighteous";

3. Jesus takes on the role of Israel and fulfills Israel's conenant obligations - the nations are indeed blest as a result of Jesus' work. It is absolutely central to discern Paul's subtle argument that Jesus "acts on Israel's behalf".

4. Israel, notwithstanding her general failure to hold up her end of the covenant has played a vital role in leading to the cross (I will not get into the specifics of that here). Therefore, it can be said, as you point out, that the "Law and the Prophets" are "witnesses" to what God has done.

 

[smaller]

My claim is not invalid, and is in fact supported by the overall argument that Paul is making.

It is a mistake to argue thus, as you do:

1. God does not need to be declared "righteous";

That was not the point. The point was that righteousness apart from Law disclosures were not done by God for God, but for participants.

Your claim (feel free to clarify) was that God was declaring His Own Righteousness apart from intent in disclosure of sharing with others and was merely disclosing His Righteousness as an aside matter.

2. Therefore the text cannot be addressing the righteousness of God. Land's sakes man, the Bible is full of accounts of God's righteousness!!!

Never made that claim. Sorry. Don't derail on a strawman.

The text is addressing how God has been faithful to His promises - He has righteously fulfilled His covenant promises to Israel, but has done so specifically through her Messianic representative, Jesus.

Your continual point has been that the Law is not for Gentiles. Yet the Law witnesses to righteousness apart from Law which IS FOR Gentiles.

Logic dictates you may not be reasoned in your connection, and are really dealing with misunderstanding the Law for what it is, a testimony for righteousness apart from Law.

This is part of the problem with any 'Law' student of scripture. They only see the physical matters of Law, but Paul assuredly described the Law as 'Spiritual.' And it MUST be spiritual as it is from Jesus Christ Himself speaking through the Prophets.

Reason does not lead a man to throw away the Words of our Saviour.

This is all about God's own righteousness, not a righteousness that we get.

And that was my point as well. I've never said God has not declared 'His Righteousness' is available apart from Law, stated BY LAW and IS assuredly available for GENTILES as stated IN THE LAW. Therefore Jesus' Words are TRUE.

Man shall live BY EVERY WORD of God. Law eradicators only problem is that they don't understand same. Nothing more.

And so it is at the end of the chapter: God has demonstrated His righteous fidelity to the covenant through sending Jesus to die for all mankind, not just Jews. Paul is tying into the fact that Israel was destined to be a blessing for the whole world. In Jesus, acting specifically as Israel's Messianic representative, that promise has come true.

The Law has MANY facets. But unless and until GOD LEADS a person to accept and understand ALL of His Words, Word tossers will NEVER learn.

Part of the lessons of LAW is that there will be WORD eradicators/killers invoked and aroused by handling the Law, the Word of God and in fact the arousal of enemies is also a promise of LAW. Israel testifies to this fact, even today.

And thus we happily discern the righteousness of God.

That was never the point Drew. Nice try though.

So, the bottom line has come again Drew. We both see that the Law testifies to exactly your bottom line, yet you seek to eradicate it.

I would observe that only your understanding of the LAW is what has been eradicated.

You are certainly welcome to see the Law as your enemy when it is in fact your own best argument for your bottom line conclusion. You want 'righteousness' apart from Law available to you. The Law GRANTS that understanding and your positions eliminate the GRANTING.

If I had a laughing cookoo bird I would insert it here [ ]. Politely of course.

I don't expect your tune to change.

enjoy!

s

 

[Drew]

That was not the point. The point was that righteousness apart from Law disclosures were not done by God for God, but for participants.

You are begging the question - presuming that the righteousness here is "our" righteousness and not God's. You need to actually make a case.

I have made the beginnings of my case - at the beginning the chapter, we have Paul emphasizing, yes, the righteousness of God. And I am prepared to argue in detail that this is still what is on his mind towards the end of the chapter. As we will see, chapter 4 is all about God being faithful to the promises He has made.

So while we do get a status of righteousness from God, the text in question, and the more broad argument is about the righteousness of God - His own fidelity to the promises He has made to both Israel, and mankind in general.

 

[smaller]

You are begging the question - presuming that the righteousness here is "our" righteousness and not God's. You need to actually make a case.

The righteousness is of Him in Him via faith. And in case you missed the obvious:

Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

I'd consider this foundational understanding. And 'where' might one find that claim? Uh huh. O.T. DELIVERY to ISRAEL.

So, would you like to eliminate that as well, seeing it was only delivered to Israel? Not one Israelite was righteous, but GENTILES are?

I have made the beginnings of my case - at the beginning the chapter, we have Paul emphasizing, yes, the righteousness of God. And I am prepared to argue in detail that this is still what is on his mind towards the end of the chapter. As we will see, chapter 4 is all about God being faithful to the promises He has made.

You are welcome to cycle through your mind and play pretzel logic games Drew. I grow tired of that when we engage and think I'll take a passer from here. Sorry.

enjoy!

s

 

[Drew]

The righteousness is of Him in Him via faith. And in case you missed the obvious:

Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

I'd consider this foundational understanding. And 'where' might one find that claim? Uh huh. O.T. DELIVERY to ISRAEL.

So, would you like to eliminate that as well, seeing it was only delivered to Israel? Not one Israelite was righteous, but GENTILES are?

Here is the problem: I have agreed that there is indeed an issue of "our righteous" status. But the theme of the righteousness of God is also present in the general vicinity of the text we are disagreeing over.

So tell you what; You make your case that the "righteousness of God" from the verse in question is our own righteousness, and I will make the case that it is the righteousness of God.

Neither of us should simply claim our position - we need to make a case.

 

[smaller]

So tell you what; You make your case that the "righteousness of God" from the verse in question is our own righteousness, and I will make the case that it is the righteousness of God.

Again, I've never made that claim.

But in case you again missed your reasoning flaws, you are also throwing away the Declared Righteousness of God when you toss the O.T. away as applicable only to Israelites, as if that is not what 'we' as Gentiles participate in.

Think you got stuck in your head somewhere Drew. When you sort it out please feel free to re-engage with sound mind reasoning.

s

 

[Drew]

Again, I've never made that claim.

But in case you again missed your reasoning flaws, you are also throwing away the Declared Righteousness of God when you toss the O.T. away as applicable only to Israelites, as if that is not what 'we' as Gentiles participate in.

Think you got stuck in your head somewhere Drew. When you sort it out please feel free to re-engage with sound mind reasoning.

s

I really wonder why you feel obliged to toss all these demeaning insults around.

I have, of course, never asserted that "the OT was applicable" to the Israelites.

I have simply followed what the texts of the OT and NT say - the Law of Moses was a written code that was given to Jews and Jews only. As anyone who has read my posts will know, I believe there is indeed a very important connection between the giving of the Law of Moses to the Jews, on the one hand, and the destiny of all mankind, on the other.

I hardly suggest you are in a position to question the soundness of my mind, when you repeatedly misrepresent my posts.

 

[Drew]

Your continual point has been that the Law is not for Gentiles. Yet the Law witnesses to righteousness apart from Law which IS FOR Gentiles.

You seem to forget that I challenge your view that the righteousness at issue in the subject verse is a reference to a righteousness we get. I believe it is a reference to the righteousness that God manifests.

 

[smaller]

I really wonder why you feel obliged to toss all these demeaning insults around.

Gods Words of the O.T. request us to reason with His Words. Those who toss them are not my favorite reasoning partners. Nothing personal, but it's reasonably hard to reason with such methods.

I have, of course, never asserted that "the OT was applicable" to the Israelites.

You may want to re-do that statement. If I recall your continual plead is that Gods Words of the O.T. were only for Israelites and inapplicable for Gentiles.

I have simply followed what the texts of the OT and NT say - the Law of Moses was a written code that was given to Jews and Jews only.

Please compare your own bolded statements. They are not matching up.

As anyone who has read my posts will know, I believe there is indeed a very important connection between the giving of the Law of Moses to the Jews, on the one hand, and the destiny of all mankind, on the other.

Don't really know where you're trying to head with the matters quite frankly.

If justification by faith is delivered by the Word of God in the Law and what is written in the O.T. is that 'none are righteous' no not one, I'm not seeing the point of keeping those matters from Gentile believers, particularly when you promote same. It's just kinda weird Drew.

I hardly suggest you are in a position to question the soundness of my mind, when you repeatedly misrepresent my posts.

Nothing personal. Reasoning does require reason imho. It's not the person, but the lines of reason in question. Reason was reasonable last time I checked.

s

 

[Drew]

Here is the heading of this thread:

"The Nation of Israel was given the Law and it was NEVER given to the Gentiles."

Yet we see for no uncertain FACT that 'righteousness apart from the LAW' is witnessed BY THE LAW and the PROPHETS.

So, IS righteousness apart from LAW witnessed BY the LAW not given to GENTILE BELIEVERS?!

Surely you jest?!

Such 'positions' are, sorry, almost, no make that totally BEYOND imbecilic in understandings.

s

I hardly suggest that you are in the position to suggest that others are "imbeciles".

Your writing is hard to follow. And no, that is not because I am an imbecile, it is because you are not communicating clearly.

You seem stuck on this notion that the "righteousness" in this particular verse in Romans 3 is a righteouns status we get. And then, through reasoning I cannot follow, you seem to think this undermines the idea that the Law of Moses was given only to Jews.

I repeast yet again: I believe that, in the verse in question, Paul is talking about God's righteousness - his fidelity to the promise He made to Israel that Israel would bless all mankind. Hence the verse means basically this: God has fulfilled His promise, and therefore demonstrated righteousness through some means other than the Law - Jesus. However, the Law of Moses played a central role leading to Jesus. And so it "witnesses" what God has done.

If this "righteousness" in the verse in question is God's own righteousness, your whole line of reasoning, unclear to me as it is, does not work.

 

[smaller]

You seem to forget that I challenge your view that the righteousness at issue in the subject verse is a reference to a righteousness we get. I believe it is a reference to the righteousness that God manifests.

Sorry, your picking at fleas on this one imho. I don't think either of us would deny that the righteousness of faith is participatory.

If no one is righteous, no not one, where might righteousness manifest/originate FROM?

If you say 'not God' it might seem reasonable that you are again arguing against yourself.

Pardon me for applying reason in advance.

?

s

 

[Drew]

You may want to re-do that statement. If I recall your continual plead is that Gods Words of the O.T. were only for Israelites and inapplicable for Gentiles.

Stop misrepresenting me. I get in trouble here when I use the "L" word in relation to those who must be intentionally misrepresenting what I post. I trust you are not taking advantage of that.

Unless you have some cognitive problem, you must surely know that I never posted anything like this!!

To assert that the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only is not the same thing as suggesting that the Old Testament has nothing to say to Gentiles. The Old Testament is much more than the Law of Moses!!! The Law of Moses is found in the first 5 books. There are many other books. And even the Law of Moses was only for Jews, we Gentiles can still learn a lot from the Law, even if we are not under it.

Analogy: Let's say we agree that the American Consitution articulates a number of sound principles for running a country. Even if I like those principles, I, as a Canadian, am simply not subject to the American Constitution. So when I affirm what Paul affirms - that the Law of Moses as given to Jews only, I am not suggesting that we Gentiles cannot learn important things from the Law of Moses!!!

Besides, as should be patently clear - there is much more in the OT than the 613 elements of the Law of Moses.

 

[smaller]

I hardly suggest that you are in the position to suggest that others are "imbeciles".

Your writing is hard to follow. And no, that is not because I am an imbecile, it is because you are not communicating clearly.

People often knee jerk when encountering alternative reasoning lines. You have encountered some lines of reasoning that you may not have seen before from the text and now you may have to digest that line of reasoning for awhile to reset in order to move on in a reasonable fashion.

I have had to do this myself when 'reasoning' with the Word and I don't believe that it is an uncommon matter amongst believers. My own efforts is always one faith, one Lord. That is a reasoned approach that the Word has made to me.

You seem stuck on this notion that the "righteousness" in this particular verse in Romans 3 is a righteouns status we get. And then, through reasoning I cannot follow, you seem to think this undermines the idea that the Law of Moses was given only to Jews.

Not really sure what you're trying to get at Drew. If no one is righteous, written and stated, re-stated by Paul, then it must originate with God. To me there is no other line of recourse. Our role then is participatory by requirement. We can not 'create' of ourselves what we do not 'have' from Him. Righteousness is in the Eternal Domain. He is thee Originator of same, at least on the Eternal Scale at a minimum.

I repeast yet again: I believe that, in the verse in question, Paul is talking about God's righteousness -

I've never said otherwise. Where are you trying to go here?

his fidelity to the promise He made to Israel that Israel would bless all mankind. Hence the verse means basically this: God has fulfilled His promise, and therefore demonstrated righteousness through some means other than the Law - Jesus. However, the Law of Moses played a central role leading to Jesus. And so it "witnesses" what God has done.

If you think the promises of the Word ended with Israel and are no longer applicable to and for them and further these matters are not extended to Gentiles, it would seem quite ridiculous to me. Sorry. The basics here are no different for them than for us.

If this "righteousness" in the verse in question is God's own righteousness, your whole line of reasoning, unclear to me as it is, does not work.

Again, I have no idea where your mind is getting that from. I've never made such a claim and have no idea why you are trying to force an issue that is non-existing that I can tell.

s

 

[Drew]

Sorry, your picking at fleas on this one imho. I don't think either of us would deny that the righteousness of faith is participatory.

If no one is righteous, no not one, where might righteousness manifest/originate FROM?

If you say 'not God' it might seem reasonable that you are again arguing against yourself.

Pardon me for applying reason in advance.

?

s

I am not sure whether you have a "problem", or whether you are being intentionally difficult.

I cannot be any clearer than I have been - you cannot simply assume this text is about our getting a status of righteousness.

The way you frame your question - about the source of a righteousness that we get - shows that you are either unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the possibility that this text has nothing whatsoever to say about a righteous status we get, but is rather entirely centred on the righteous behaviour of God.