If that is what you are basing your interpretation on, the premise is incorrect. If you are getting that idea from Romans 1:14
“I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.” you are still incorrect. Romans 4 focuses on circumcision (the Jews) vs uncircumcision (Gentiles). Two groups are explicitly identified in 4:11 "He received the sign of circumcision---to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised---and the father of the circumcised"
Paul is making a point, and the point is faith counted as righteousness---not works counted as righteousness no matter who you are, where you live, what your ethnicity is. or when a person lived. What he is not doing is not doing is talking about three groups of people as you claim. To think that is the case is to miss Paul's entire point.
Chapter 1 talks about all men who have no law and what God does to them. Step by step, worse and worse. The end of chapter 2 is about the Jews.
Romans 1: "18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who
suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. "
This section is about those who do not have any law, either the Law, or a law unto themselves. These are the uncultured, the barbarian you speak of above. The Greek in the verse you posted is the CULTURED person, who is a law unto themselves. Their conscience or understanding acts as a law to them. The barbarian has no law.
To show the difference between the barbarian who has no law, and the Jew who does not keep the Law you have:
" 26 So if the [x]uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who [y]though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor [z]of the Law?"
And that judgment by the physically uncircumcised who keeps the law is a judgment against the Jewish hypocrisy.
Yes. But even though there were Jewish believers in the Roman church, the recipients were predominantly Gentile (Rom 11:13; Romans 15:15-16; Romans 1:13} That is the internal evidence of what I say.
Yes, that is true. That is because the Romans ejected the Jews out of Rome and they were still returning. Some prominent Jews were already there, who Paul does address by name in Romans. The point of Romans 1 - 3, as I would use it, is to show that salvation is not for the Jews only (1st point). Second point is that the Law does not save the Jews, they stand condemned because they do not keep it. They are in the same boat as the Gentiles in regards to salvation. Hence Romans 3:23. ALL have sinned, including the Jews. The Jews are not excluded from this. The Law, and physical circumcision do not exclude the Jews from being sinners and falling short of the glory of God.
The external evidence is found in the likely time of writing---around AD 56-58.
Around AD49 Claudius expelled Jews from Rome.
Later, Jewish believers returned, creating tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Much of Romans is addressing this tension (Romans 3:9; 3-4).
The Mosaic covenant law was for the Hebrews (the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). The fact that Jacob's name was changed by God to Israel cannot continue to be ignored in deciding where national Israel is placed when interpreting OT Scripture. Israel has come to be viewed as ethnic, but it did not begin that way. Abraham's likely ethnic background would have been Semitic Mesopotamian (a Semite). Abrahams family iow was a Semitic clan which grew into a tribal people through descent from Abraham and incorporation of household members. The earthly Hebrews were Abraham's extended clan and---his descendants (blood relatives), servants, and people acquired from other groups. Already his family included Egyptians (Hagar)and Arameans (Rebekah came from relatives in Aram, though she was still from Abraham's extended kin group).
The Mosaic covenant was temporary. The author of Hebrews says it was flawed. It wasn't flawed to say that God screwed up, but was specifically made to be temporary. It was replaced by the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, and it is solely for the Jews. Physical circumcision of the Jews is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant DOES NOT save. It is a land promise, among a few other things. It will find its fulfillment in the Messiani Kingdom, because the fulfillment is for Abraham... and his physical descendants. The only special condition is, those physical descendants must also be spiritual descendants to actually see the fulfillment. Believing Jews.
That digresses a bit but is serving a purpose (hope springs eternal). It is not necessary to know those things in order to glean many truths from the Bible and certainly not necessary for salvation. However, if one is going to support a theory that has the Bible dividing peoples into two categories in the one plan of redemption---basically ethnic land possessors and those who are not of that ethnicity and inhabit a different land---they logically should know this. If they did it would keep them from presenting serious errors and if the wall they were building on was stable, it would not crumble. Obviously, what I have presented leaves great gaping holes in the support that is given for a statement like the Abrahamic covenant was for Jews only.
And don't forget Gal 3:29 "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise."
So why doesn't it say heirs according to the COVENANT? Why the promise? Because God made a specific promise, separate from the covenant where God said that in Abraham's seed (singular, representing Jesus Christ) all the families of the earth (nations of the earth is another translation) will be blessed. And elsewhere, Paul speaks of the Gentiles as the SPIRITUAL descendants of Abraham by faith. The covenant is for the physical descendants of Abraham, with a physical circumcision as the sign of that covenant.
Did you not read what Paul said?
11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
The descendants of Jacob (Israel) were given the land promised to Abraham. However, under the Mosaic covenant their continued possession of the land became conditional upon obedience to the covenant law.
So God just went to Abraham one day and said, I'm sorry, I have to violate our covenant? The Mosaic covenant DID NOT SUPERCEDE the Abrahamic. God made a covenant with ABRAHAM. If it doesn't happen, or if it doesn't continue, God broke His covenant with Abraham. Even Paul didn't believe the Abrahamic covenant was done. He had Timothy get circumcised because Timothy chose his Jewish heritage, thus, by the Abrahamic covenant, Timothy had to be circumcised. He specifically had Titus NOT get circumcised, because Titus was a Gentile, not a Jew. The Abrahamic covenant does not relate to Titus.
What particular scripture are you referring to. There are at least three that mention the covenant with day and night. I cannot respond to the implied condescension until you identify the particulars.
The one where it says that Israel will not cease, and the Davidic covenant and the covenant God made with the Levites will not cease.
Yes it was made to Abraham and his descendants. Did God give the land to Abraham's descendants? Does God have a right to establish a law within the redemptive plan and place stipulations on that covenant of law? Did he do that? Are you arguing with God? It is not me who says that possession of the land was conditional. I am repeating God's word.
God did not put any stipulations on the Abrahamic covenant to include anyone other that Abraham and his physical descendants. Why do you keep acting as though the Abrahamic covenant is either fully violated by God, or just disappeared, so when time ends, all we can say is God violated the covenant? God never told Abraham that the land He covenanted to Abraham was conditional. Never.
I don't disagree with the concept, but what in your view is the end of the age? This age? Or some future age? Because when I read Jesus' words and the words of the apostles, I only see two ages mentioned. This one and the one to come.
It depends on what we are talking about. I believe the Jews consider many ages. I think of the end of the temporal age, which will be at the end of the Messianic kingdom, when the heavens and the earth are destroyed and replaced with a new heavens and a new earth which have never tasted of sin. The fireworks of every atom splitting at the same time will be incredible. The Abrahamic Covenant of land possession will be fulfilled in the Messianic Kingdom. That covenant and promises made by God said that it would be a possession to ABRAHAM and his people forever. This has not happened yet. They have been kicked out multiple times. If it doesn't happen, ie. amillennialism, then God has not kept His promise. The reason I mention amillennialism only, and don't bounce back with dispensationalism or any other eschatological belief is that I am dealing with where amillennialism specifically states that there will be no physical kingdom, no actual physical fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.
So, thanks again.
