Romans 9:31

[hawkflint]

Alon, could you give me an accurate translation of Romans 9:31? I need it for my study.

[alon]

Nov 14, 2016 7:28:52 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

Alon, could you give me an accurate translation of Romans 9:31? I need it for my study.

We have to be careful when reading Rav Sh'ul. Always be mindful of everything he has said, all of which must be reconciled in scripture. So the same man who said "Are we, then, abolishing law through faith? MAY IT NEVER BE! Rather, we are establishing law." (Romans 3:31); that man cannot now be speaking against the Law. REmember too that Rav Sh'ul is at times very difficult to understand:

2 Peter 3:15-17 (ESV) And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,  as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.  You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Therefore it is extremely dangerous to pull a scripture or even a passage out of context and try to decipher what is meant. Read everything in context. Try to see the major topic and get a feel for the flow of the discussion.

Romans 9:27-32a (ESV) And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,  for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.”  And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.” What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;  but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.  Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 

And keep in mind when this was written as well. 1st cen Israel was a hotbed of competing sects, each one more strict in their Halacha than the next. Judaism was becoming very legalistic, believing if they kept this strict halachic life Hashem would sent the moshiach to help them cast off their Roman oppressors. The stumbling stone spoken of was this legalistic idea that by making it difficult, even impossible to follow and keep all the fences and interpretations man had placed on it at the time, then by keeping and your sect's Halacha you could earn salvation.

“Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved" says to me that God is not rejecting Israel, as Christianity teaches us it means. Clearly some Jews will be saved.

 

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law." We must be careful here. Since most of us were taught this means God rejected the Jews and now favors the Gentiles, it is easy to read past what is really said without noticing the truth. This statement does not pertain to every Gentile or to every Jew. What Gentiles attained righteousness? The ones who did so by FAITH (belief, trust). And what Jews does Sh'ul mean? Clearly many were in his own sect, the Nots'rim, and they were saved the same way- they placed their trust in Yeshua HaMoshiach. The ones not saved are those who tried to keep the Laws of God as well as the overly burdensome laws placed on them by their religious leaders, depending on their adherence to those laws for their salvation, never reached it.

Ephesians 2:8 (KJV)  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

There only ever has been one way to be saved. Keeping God's and doing as we are commanded the best we can is a result of that salvation, not the cause of it nor even requisite to it. The correct interpretation of the scripture you gave is that Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. They trust El Elohe Yisro'el and are granted His unmerited favor. If you read all of Romans 3, you'll see the major theme there is God's sovereign choice concerning man; and the passage I quoted deals with how man's free will choices relate to God concerning salvation. In your specific verse, the law those Jews tried to reach, depending on it for their salvation, was the excessive fences and Halacha of extremist 1st cen sects. Even those depending just on were missing the message of that same .

Romans 4:13 (ESV) For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Thayer's Bible Dictionary defines that word "faith" (Gk pisteuo) to mean placing confidence in, trust. Salvation comes through faith/trust. Obedience to the law comes afterwards. It is done out of our love and relationship to a merciful Elohim. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that Gentiles who are saved by the God of Israel, and who are now grafted into Israel (Rom 11)- nowhere does it say we are exempt from His Law, ! It just says the law never saved anyone. Trust in Hashem is what saves you, Jew or Gentile.

Dan C

[hawkflint]

Nov 14, 2016 14:37:51 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 14, 2016 14:37:51 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 14, 2016 7:28:52 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

Alon, could you give me an accurate translation of Romans 9:31? I need it for my study.

We have to be careful when reading Rav Sh'ul. Always be mindful of everything he has said, all of which must be reconciled in scripture. So the same man who said "Are we, then, abolishing law through faith? MAY IT NEVER BE! Rather, we are establishing law." (Romans 3:31); that man cannot now be speaking against the Law. REmember too that Rav Sh'ul is at times very difficult to understand:

2 Peter 3:15-17 (ESV) And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,  as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.  You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Therefore it is extremely dangerous to pull a scripture or even a passage out of context and try to decipher what is meant. Read everything in context. Try to see the major topic and get a feel for the flow of the discussion.

Romans 9:27-32a (ESV) And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,  for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.”  And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.” What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;  but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.  Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 

And keep in mind when this was written as well. 1st cen Israel was a hotbed of competing sects, each one more strict in their Halacha than the next. Judaism was becoming very legalistic, believing if they kept this strict halachic life Hashem would sent the moshiach to help them cast off their Roman oppressors. The stumbling stone spoken of was this legalistic idea that by making it difficult, even impossible to follow and keep all the fences and interpretations man had placed on it at the time, then by keeping and your sect's Halacha you could earn salvation.

“Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved" says to me that God is not rejecting Israel, as Christianity teaches us it means. Clearly some Jews will be saved.

 

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law." We must be careful here. Since most of us were taught this means God rejected the Jews and now favors the Gentiles, it is easy to read past what is really said without noticing the truth. This statement does not pertain to every Gentile or to every Jew. What Gentiles attained righteousness? The ones who did so by FAITH (belief, trust). And what Jews does Sh'ul mean? Clearly many were in his own sect, the Nots'rim, and they were saved the same way- they placed their trust in Yeshua HaMoshiach. The ones not saved are those who tried to keep the Laws of God as well as the overly burdensome laws placed on them by their religious leaders, depending on their adherence to those laws for their salvation, never reached it.

Ephesians 2:8 (KJV)  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

There only ever has been one way to be saved. Keeping God's and doing as we are commanded the best we can is a result of that salvation, not the cause of it nor even requisite to it. The correct interpretation of the scripture you gave is that Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. They trust El Elohe Yisro'el and are granted His unmerited favor. If you read all of Romans 3, you'll see the major theme there is God's sovereign choice concerning man; and the passage I quoted deals with how man's free will choices relate to God concerning salvation. In your specific verse, the law those Jews tried to reach, depending on it for their salvation, was the excessive fences and Halacha of extremist 1st cen sects. Even those depending just on were missing the message of that same .

Romans 4:13 (ESV) For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Thayer's Bible Dictionary defines that word "faith" (Gk pisteuo) to mean placing confidence in, trust. Salvation comes through faith/trust. Obedience to the law comes afterwards. It is done out of our love and relationship to a merciful Elohim. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that Gentiles who are saved by the God of Israel, and who are now grafted into Israel (Rom 11)- nowhere does it say we are exempt from His Law, ! It just says the law never saved anyone. Trust in Hashem is what saves you, Jew or Gentile.

Dan C

Thanks for this info, I just learned some things that I'd have probably never figured out by myself. But what I meant was what an honest translation of the verse from Greek to English.


This quote thing is frustrating.

[hawkflint]

Thanks for this info, I just learned some things that I'd have probably never figured out by myself. But what I meant was what an honest translation of the verse from Greek to English.

This quote thing is frustrating.

[alon]

Nov 14, 2016 17:07:32 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

Thanks for this info, I just learned some things that I'd have probably never figured out by myself. But what I meant was what an honest translation of the verse from Greek to English.

This quote thing is frustrating.

hawkflint said: This quote thing is frustrating.

The quote thing takes some getting used to. Just type under the "bubble" to reply. Breaking things up so you can reply to each line in a longer post is more difficult. I usually just copy and paste, type in their "name said:" in front of each line. Then highlight each one and hit the "Quote" bubble, top right of the task bar.

hawkflint said: But what I meant was what an honest translation of the verse from Greek to English.

Romans 9:31 (YLT)  and Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, at a law of righteousness did not arrive;

Young's Literal Translation tries to get as close to what was actually said while still being readable. However this is still steeped in Catholic doctrine and is still just a translation, so beware. Also you'll still have to use your mind as well as read in context in order to understand it. For example, the church uses this to say the law was bad and the Jews were somewhere between misguided and bad. But notice it says "a" law of righteousness, not "the Law." So we can still see Rav Sha'ul is speaking about another law; that we know is probably that of the extremist sects and even the Pharisees. The sect of the P'rush, or Pharisees, was by far the largest in Israel at that time. They were, in contemporary terms, the party of the people. Yeshua was a P'rush, but who had His own following. We know this because He taught from the Oral Tradition (Mishna) and He argued with many P'rushim. Outside the Temple a Jew of that time would not argue with others outside their sect. He upbraided them many times for making their Halacha too strict and too onerous:

Mat 23:4 (KJV) For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them.

And yet He also said:

Matthew 23:1-3 (YLT)  Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to his disciples, saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;

Even though He knew no one could keep as well as all the fences placed on it by men who didn't even try to keep it all, Yeshua said to do as they said. This is where grace came into play. If we repent and try harder, we are forgiven. But you must trust Yeshua to forgive, and to send His Ruach to help. This is what neither the Jews who think the law and their good works will save them nor the Dispensationalist Christian who thinks he can sin with impunity because he has grace understands. There is and has always been salvation in repentance and trust, and no other way. Both may tell you that is how it is, but their doctrines and actions tell a different story. Why did Israel not arrive at a law of righteousness when they were diligently and with great fervor pursuing such a law? Because it was man-made, and no law of man is ample for salvation. And for the same reason Christianity with their man-made customs, practices, holidays and worship is in grave danger of making the same mistake Israel made. Both pursue "a" law of righteousness, not Elohim's ; they do not pursue God's Law of righteousness but their own. It says so, right there in Rom 9: 31.

Dan C

Moderator note: I'll leave this here for a day or so, so you can easily find it, then move it to its' proper category. We like to keep things organized so others who may have similar questions can easily reference the post. I'll send you an email when I move it.  Dan

[hawkflint]

Nov 14, 2016 17:53:39 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 14, 2016 17:07:32 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

Thanks for this info, I just learned some things that I'd have probably never figured out by myself. But what I meant was what an honest translation of the verse from Greek to English.

This quote thing is frustrating.

hawkflint said: This quote thing is frustrating.

The quote thing takes some getting used to. Just type under the "bubble" to reply. Breaking things up so you can reply to each line in a longer post is more difficult. I usually just copy and paste, type in their "name said:" in front of each line. Then highlight each one and hit the "Quote" bubble, top right of the task bar.

hawkflint said: But what I meant was what an honest translation of the verse from Greek to English.

Romans 9:31 (YLT)  and Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, at a law of righteousness did not arrive;

Young's Literal Translation tries to get as close to what was actually said while still being readable. However this is still steeped in Catholic doctrine and is still just a translation, so beware. Also you'll still have to use your mind as well as read in context in order to understand it. For example, the church uses this to say the law was bad and the Jews were somewhere between misguided and bad. But notice it says "a" law of righteousness, not "the Law." So we can still see Rav Sha'ul is speaking about another law; that we know is probably that of the extremist sects and even the Pharisees. The sect of the P'rush, or Pharisees, was by far the largest in Israel at that time. They were, in contemporary terms, the party of the people. Yeshua was a P'rush, but who had His own following. We know this because He taught from the Oral Tradition (Mishna) and He argued with many P'rushim. Outside the Temple a Jew of that time would not argue with others outside their sect. He upbraided them many times for making their Halacha too strict and too onerous:

Mat 23:4 (KJV) For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them.

And yet He also said:

Matthew 23:1-3 (YLT)  Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to his disciples, saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;

Even though He knew no one could keep as well as all the fences placed on it by men who didn't even try to keep it all, Yeshua said to do as they said. This is where grace came into play. If we repent and try harder, we are forgiven. But you must trust Yeshua to forgive, and to send His Ruach to help. This is what neither the Jews who think the law and their good works will save them nor the Dispensationalist Christian who thinks he can sin with impunity because he has grace understands. There is and has always been salvation in repentance and trust, and no other way. Both may tell you that is how it is, but their doctrines and actions tell a different story. Why did Israel not arrive at a law of righteousness when they were diligently and with great fervor pursuing such a law? Because it was man-made, and no law of man is ample for salvation. And for the same reason Christianity with their man-made customs, practices, holidays and worship is in grave danger of making the same mistake Israel made. Both pursue "a" law of righteousness, not Elohim's ; they do not pursue God's Law of righteousness but their own. It says so, right there in Rom 9: 31.

Dan C

Moderator note: I'll leave this here for a day or so, so you can easily find it, then move it to its' proper category. We like to keep things organized so others who may have similar questions can easily reference the post. I'll send you an email when I move it.  Dan

Thanks. We have similar thinking haha. It was shown to me in the past month all the Laws that Paul talks about, and I've been working on studying these and typing them all down. When I'm done I will happily give the info, but where should I put my info on these Laws in this forum?

[alon]

Nov 14, 2016 19:25:24 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

Interesting; I look forward to seeing that. Sometimes it is tough to pick a spot to post things like that. Since it will cover many different letters/books, I'd suggest "The Extension: First Century Believers." It is a broad enough category to handle such a broad topic.

Dan C

[hawkflint]

Nov 15, 2016 1:20:37 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 14, 2016 19:25:24 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

Interesting; I look forward to seeing that. Sometimes it is tough to pick a spot to post things like that. Since it will cover many different letters/books, I'd suggest "The Extension: First Century Believers." It is a broad enough category to handle such a broad topic.

Dan C

Shalom.

I have almost finished my research, and I want to know how much content I can put on a single thread/post. Like, if I start a thread/post, can I put as much content as I want on it or do the rules apply to that as well?

[alon]

Dec 12, 2016 18:59:07 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

I have almost finished my research, and I want to know how much content I can put on a single thread/post. Like, if I start a thread/post, can I put as much content as I want on it or do the rules apply to that as well?

With longer posts, it is generally best to edit and make sure you couldn't make your point in fewer words. Then, if still long, it is best to break the post up into a series of smaller posts. As a general guideline, think of what you'd put on an 8 1/2 X 11 page of paper as the max. That isn't hard and fast, as we'll allow leeway for things like finding a good point to break the page/ flow of thought. Also, if you only have a page and a half or less, just put it on one page.


Another consideration is whether the material in the post couldn't better be done in a few different threads.

Most people will not read long posts unless very well written. But oddly enough, many of us will read several pages ... go figure. And if the subject matter changes, we tend to lose interest. It is just how people are wired. The idea is to make your post as readable as possible so as many people as possible will read and understand it.

We discourage people who like to write books, but when every once in a while a lengthy post is necessary we (or at least I) tend to accomodate. I've had to talk to a couple of people about it, but have never issued a warning (nor anything more serious either). And I am guilty on occasion. 

And remember; I have to read it all- so be kind! 

Dan C

edit: I'll probably move this soon, so watch for the little bubble where the "Messages" button is at the top of every page. Click on that and you can go to my message (which  always do) telling you where I moved the posts. 

[hawkflint]

Dec 12, 2016 20:03:40 GMT -8 alon said:

Dec 12, 2016 18:59:07 GMT -8 hawkflint said:

I have almost finished my research, and I want to know how much content I can put on a single thread/post. Like, if I start a thread/post, can I put as much content as I want on it or do the rules apply to that as well?

With longer posts, it is generally best to edit and make sure you couldn't make your point in fewer words. Then, if still long, it is best to break the post up into a series of smaller posts. As a general guideline, think of what you'd put on an 8 1/2 X 11 page of paper as the max. That isn't hard and fast, as we'll allow leeway for things like finding a good point to break the page/ flow of thought. Also, if you only have a page and a half or less, just put it on one page.


Another consideration is whether the material in the post couldn't better be done in a few different threads.

Most people will not read long posts unless very well written. But oddly enough, many of us will read several pages ... go figure. And if the subject matter changes, we tend to lose interest. It is just how people are wired. The idea is to make your post as readable as possible so as many people as possible will read and understand it.

We discourage people who like to write books, but when every once in a while a lengthy post is necessary we (or at least I) tend to accomodate. I've had to talk to a couple of people about it, but have never issued a warning (nor anything more serious either). And I am guilty on occasion. 

And remember; I have to read it all- so be kind! 

Dan C

edit: I'll probably move this soon, so watch for the little bubble where the "Messages" button is at the top of every page. Click on that and you can go to my message (which  always do) telling you where I moved the posts. 

Thanks. Peace to you.

[alon]

Thread excerpted from another thread and moved to its proper category in Romans.

Dan C