Chapter # 9 Paragraph # 5 Study # 1
April 29, 2018
Humble, Texas
(046)
1769 Translation:
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because [
they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1901 ASV Translation:
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:
31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at [
that] law.
32 Wherefore?
Because [
they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling;
33 even as it is written,
Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: And he that believeth on
him shall not be put to shame.
- I. Paul's Call For a Conclusion.
- A. This is the last "What shall we say then" question in Romans (3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14; 9:30).
- B. Because this seems to be a favorite Pauline method of highlighting significant theses, it must be considered of serious impact that the Gentiles got, without effort, what Israel did not get through significant (but flawed) effort.
- 1. The first time Paul used this formulaic statement he was addressing whether the fact that God, in His wisdom, used the unrighteous behavior of the wicked to showcase His own righteousness was a valid basis for deciding that what was showcased was actually "unrighteousness" (3:5).
- 2. Then, in turning from the declaration that God is God of the Gentiles as well as God of the Jews by His "forever truth" that man is justified by faith "without the deeds of Law", Paul used the next opportunity for this formulaic statement to raise the issue of whether, in fact, this was His "forever truth" by appealing to Abraham's "discovery" (4:1).
- 3. Next, it was the intensely crucial issue of the believer's attitude toward his/her own sin in view of the reality of "abounding grace" that called for this formulaic statement (6:1). This was followed in 6:15 with a likeness to this formulaic statement that left out the verb (shall we say) in view of the follow up question as to the believer's attitude toward his/her own sin in view of the absolute deliverance from "Law".
- 4. Then, in 7:7 there is the question of whether there is actually something "sinful" about "The Law" because it is regularly manipulated by "Sin" to produce sins: the answer, of course, is that "The Law" was designed to reveal Sin/sins, not regulate it/them.
- 5. After this, there is 8:31 which follows up on God's intentional fixation upon His people so that He is "for" them to ultimate victory.
- 6. 9:14 raises yet another call for a firm conclusion, but it is a return to the issue of 3:5 (the question of whether God is "unrighteous") and answers it with the reality of God's freedom to show mercy on His own terms.
- 7. That brings us to this current text and Paul's last use of his formulaic statement wherein the issue is the same issue of the prelude to 4:1 where He is identified as "The God" to both Jews and Gentiles on the basis of "faith" as opposed to works of "Law".
- II. The Nature of the "General" Conclusion.
- A. It is "general" in the sense that it "generally" applies, but not in every case.
- 1. Not all "Gentiles" obtained righteousness.
- 2. Not all "Israelites" failed to obtain righteousness, though the "failure" of obtaining "Law" righteousness was absolute (Paul's earlier statement that "no flesh will be justified by Law" is absolute). As "some" Gentiles obtained righteousness, so also "some" Israelites obtained righteousness.
- B. "Gentiles" have laid hold on "righteousness".
- 1. In the Larger Plan, people who made no effort to obtain a right standing before the High God of Heaven were actually "given" such a standing.
- 2. This is a most crucial truth: righteousness "by faith" is, by definition, without the recipient's effort.
- 3. This marks a highly significant shift in the Larger Plan. As Pentecost revealed this shift by the coming of The Spirit in sound and sight and the implications of God's return to "humanity" (both Gentiles and Jews) by what was heard and seen, so now Paul declares the shift: God is The God of humanity, not of Jews only. And He has granted "righteousness" to all those who receive it "by faith".
- C. "Israel" has not achieved "righteousness".
- 1. Israel "pursued" the Law of Righteousness and every one of them, without exception, miserably failed.
- a. "Israel" inserted the very thing the "Gentiles" ignored: pursuit.
- b. But "Israel" pursued "a law of righteousness". Their pursuit was focused upon "Law" as both the standard of what righteousness is (revelation) and the method for obtaining it (regulation).
- c. But "Israel" did not arrive unto [that] law: not a single solitary one obtained a right standing before God by works of Law.
- 2. Israel sought a performance based righteousness on an extremely tenuous foundation; a "look what I have achieved" basis. This is sought as a foundation to boast and present oneself as "superior" and "self-worthy".
- III. The Explanation of the Conclusion.
- A. Why are things the way they are at this point?
- B. "Israel" used the wrong methodology.
- 1. "Israel" did not act "out of faith". This means that "Israel" acted independently of God. When one "believes" God, God acts (this is, in a nutshell, the essence of what it means to "believe"). "Israel", in effect, said, "I can do this and I do not need God to act for me".
- 2. "Israel" did act "out of works". This means that "Israel" sought to produce of itself what only God can produce in fallen man.
- C. "Israel" stumbled over the stone that occasions "tripping over".
- 1. There is an occasion for tripping over a barrier so that the race is lost.
- 2. That occasion is called "a stone which stumbles". At issue is the large experience of peace with God and participation in His glory. But this large experience is strictly governed. The governance has to do with the attitude of man toward God. God seeks to be for man what man actually needs in an ignorant and fallen relational universe. Man seeks to be his own solution as a basic matter of pride. First evidenced by Cain who John, in effect, calls "a son of the wicked one (the devil/satan) (1 John 3:12). He says of him, "...his works were evil..." and those "works" were directly in respect to making an offering to God. His "sin" was in the attitude that God had to accept the work of his hands because it was his work.
- 3. The biblical support for this concept of Paul's is both Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16. At issue is God's declaration that He will set up a "stone" in Zion that will divide the people into two groups; those that want to "go it alone" and those who turn to the Lord for what they need.
- a. It is a most fundamental aspect of being "creature" that the created needs the constant input of the Creator (the proud call this "a crutch", thus revealing their pride as those who are sufficient in themselves so that they are superior to those who need a "crutch").
- b. It is a most fundamental aspect of the rebellion of proud ambition to reject this most fundamental aspect of being "creature". It is not, however, about rejection of need; it is about the ambition of being "God" in His place with His prerogatives and authority.