Romans 3.1-8

Continued. We are working with International Critical Commentary, Sandlay and Headlam, Fifth Edition (EdinburghL T. & T. Clark, 1908).

Rom 3.1-8

Observations:

1. Sanday and Headlam develop the implicit objections that swirl in this section, 3.1-8. We’ll elaborate once we get to the micro-analysis of the text.

2. If God requires an inward and spiritual change, what has happened to the privileged position of ancient Israel and the position of the Jew, an Abrahamic descendant? What is gained by circumcision, the sign and seal of the covenant, the "outward sign of the invisible and internal grace?"

3. Answer: The first gain is that the Jews were committed to the coming of the Messiah. They were taught and trained to look for Him. Their Levitical system taught them about sin and redemption, grace and forgiveness, holiness and their fallenness, and more.

4. Another answer and advantage for the Jew is found at Romans 9.4-5: “They are Israelites, and to them belong) the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

5. The objector continues, “Yes, I see what you mean. The Bible surely teaches all that at Romans 9.4-5. They indeed had those advantages in training over the centuries. But a vast number of Jews—today, Paul—according to genes and the flesh, have denied and rejected the Messiah. Are the promises then null and void to them? I don’t get it? How do you answer this?”

6. Romans 9-11 is the fuller answer to the question; 9.6ff observes that not all Abraham’s children were children of the seed and promise, but the elect only. Election and eternal predestination is the answer. Another amplification of that point is noted at Romans 11.7-8: “What then?) Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, `God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’”

7. Another objection arises. “Well, then, if that sort of unrighteousness is merely a foil to exhibit God’s righteousness, what kind of justice is that? To punish men for a divine determination not to save the non-elect?”

8. Answer: “If this objection were to stand, itself, God would be incapacitated from judging anyone.”

9. Another answer amplifies and stuns the reader at Romans 9.19-24: “You will say to me then, `Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, `Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Observations on observations:

1. Paul is dealing with objections doubtlessly encountered during his varied ministries throughout the Mediterranean that dealt with (larger, but not total) Jewish rejection of the Christian message.

2. In addition to developing the themes of sin, judgment, justification, sanctification, baptism, church, state and various ethical responses, Paul provides a redemptive-historical approach connecting the older and new covenantal administration, a biblical philosophy of history.

3. Unlike the dispensationalists with their “two people” of God theory, “Genetic Israel and the Church,” Paul teaches the continuity and unity of the NT Church with ancient Israel. Believers are Abraham’s children. Galatians 3.6-8, inter alia.

4. This disjunction of the OT and NT is the soil in which the denial of the continuous outworking of the Abrahamic promises are denied, e.g. Anabaptists, Charismatic enthusiasts, and others of all sorts.

5. Anabaptists, Charismatics (the few that read) and other enthusiasts say very silly and mind-numbing things like, “Circumcision was outward and meant nothing inward,” e.g. justification, sanctification. There are some scholarly Anabaptists who say these grossly infantile things. Dispensationalists have been notorious for this, although adjustments to some of these things have been made. We are not current on their literature and revisions to these salutary objections.

6. Paul does not hesitate to address “election and predestination,” although in the last analysis he does not give us the ultimate reason for the judgment of the reprobate. Clearly, their own sins condemn them. That is sufficient. However, the reason for not “electing” head-for-head-Israelites, to whom were the varied advantages, is not given. It’s a limit beyond which we may not proceed.

Correlations to related issues:

1. Obviously, the study of the entire OT record is the presupposition of Romans. That is a given.

2. Covenant and election. See Dr. Scott Clark’s various publications.

3. Federal vision.

4. Mainline liberalism. Given their hermeneutics, consider their complete disability and inabilities to address sin, judgment, justification and this history of philosophy.

5. Universalism in the (Romanist) Catholic Catechism of the Church. Also, Peter Kreeft's work on universalism. Also, Billy Graham's gross mis-statements.

6. Particular redemption and the Synod of Dordt.

7. Infant baptism and the Abrahamic covenant. Anabaptist theology.

8. Dispensationalism.

9. Amillenialism.

10. Romanist and Anglo-Catholic sacerdotalism, to wit, baptism effects head-for-head regeneration.

11. Lutheran and Reformed views of baptism.

12. Arminianism.

Interpretation.

Paul is engaging casuistical and probably some honest objections to Jewish inquiries in relation to the OT promises. What's the situation for the Jew with his ancient privileges?

Application.

1. See the correlations, all of which require study and response in the Church Militant: Romery, Anglo-Catholics, Anabaptists, Dispensationalists, Federal Vision, and Sacraments.

2. Add Cranfield’s discussion as the days unfold. Also, Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Murray and Lenski.

3. Highlight the abominable inadequacies of mainline liberalism. Perhaps do some satire on them.

4. Highlight the inadequacies of making covenant co-extensive with election, as if every head circumcised or baptized were elect from before the foundation of the world.