To facilitate accessing my series on Romans, here is a list of links to blog posts on Romans and also future planned posts (though it might change a bit as I move ahead).
1) Romans 1-2
2) Romans 3
3) Romans 4:1-8
4) Romans 4:9-17 (Now up)
5) Romans 4:18-25
6) Observations on Romans 1-4 as a whole
7) Romans 5
8) Romans 6
9) Observations on Romans 5-6 as a whole
10) Romans 7
11) Romans 8
12) Observations on Romans 7-8 as a whole
13) Romans 9
14) Romans 10
15) Romans 11
16) Observations on Romans 9-11 as a whole
17) Romans 12-16
18) Final comments on Romans
Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2007
Synopsis on Romans (Part 4- Chapter 4:9 -17)
A couple notes about the previous verses that I forgot to include:
First, my comments on the first eight verses of chapter 4 fall in line with a covenantal view where one freely enters into the covenant but must have works to remain in the covenant and for the covenant to be fulfilled by God (BTW I might soon do a post on Abraham's covenant to validate this). In other words, at first one is justified freely by faith, but if there is time to, one must have works in addition to trust in God to remain justified. But with that said, I find impressing the idea of covenant upon Romans any more than as simply a possible explanatory framework of how Paul's theology developed is pressing too much on Paul's message in my opinion.
Secondly, I alluded to this point a little bit, but I failed to develop it further. The importance of faith in justification is that it is by faith that righteous character springs forth. Paul states in 1:18. Also, this is central to Paul's discourse on Jesus' faith. Faith is the human means of obtaining righteous obedience. This is important point to see in Paul's development of faith in order to see what Paul is stating in 4:1-8; not that faith is some part of a checklist needed to be fulfilled to be justified, but rather that it is the human means by which the righteous life may be lived and hence it is acceptable to justification.
Third, while I concluded my previous post at verse 8, it would in fact be a mistake to think that Paul's primary motivation was to prove that works were not necessary to first become justified. He does on the side prove that point, but it is only a minor point with him in this letter. He is trying to prove that a person does not need the works of the Law in order to become justified. The point is made by noting that Abraham was justified by faith before he was ever circumcised. If God credited Abraham with righteousness before circumcision and if God is one who does not change His dealings with humanity (implicit in Paul's argumentation), then the conclusion that could be drawn is that it was never necessary to be circumcised to be justified (and by implication the Law as a whole).
What was the role of circumcision then? Paul states that it was a seal or a sign of the righteousness he had beforehand when he trusted in God. The question that must be asked here about this is whether this seal was a sign of God seeing Abraham as righteous or as a sign that Abraham was vindicated by his obedience in being circumcised. If we presume that Paul is pulling this from what is said in the Old Testament narrative (specifically in Genesis 17 here), the latter is probable. There is no statement from God to the effect of "this is a sign of my acceptance of you" or "you are righteous, therefore I ask you to be circumcised" Rather, God simply commands Abraham and his household to be circumcised as part of the covenant. As the narrative reveals in Genesis 17:23, Abraham obeys God's command. It is from this part of the patriarchal story that Paul concludes that circumcision was a sign of righteousness. Or another way to put it is that circumcision is the sign that Abraham is obedient to God.
Now faith was also pivotal to the story of Abraham. Because Abraham trusted that God would fulfill the covenant He had made and because Abraham believed that God would give him a son to be his heir (compare Genesis 15:1-6 with 17:15-21), Abraham in turn obeyed God's command for circumcision. So faith here is the human means needed to accomplish righteous obedience.
What is the result of all this? Paul states there are two conclusions. First off, the uncircumcised who do not have Abraham has a genealogical father may be a father for all those that do believe. Once again, this must be seen in light of the Genesis story. Paul is stating that the whole world can in effect become part of Abraham's promise regarding his descendants. The concept of "father" and the promise Abraham received is being broadened by Paul. It now being envisioned as meaning a person who does something that other people then do later on (though not necessarily by cognitively following the example of the "father").
Paul then shifts focus to those of the circumcision, which is synonymous with being Jewish. Abraham was to be a father to them too, but there was another qualification they needed. They needed to follow in Abraham's example of faith. Otherwise, Abraham is their father only in the biological sense, but not necessarily a true descendant according to the promise given to Abraham (mentioned in the follow verse). This coincides with the thrust of Romans 9, which we will address more at that point.
Why then are those who are not circumcised included? And why are those who circumcised must also have faith? Because the promise Abraham received came when he had trust in God but had not yet been circumcised, although it is a bit more than that. How exactly was this promise received? And what exactly is the promise that Abraham is referring to? It is all likely a reference to the story of Genesis 12.
In Genesis 12, Abram is told two things. First, he was told to leave his home and go into a new land that God would show him. Secondly, as a result of going he would then be made a great nation and all families of the earth would be blessed because of him (the Hebrew waw-consecutive verb would argue this). What happens next? Abram goes off. As a result, God then says that his descendants would inherit the land he had come to (the waw-consecutive again).
Lets read between the lines in this story. God commanded and conjoined a blessing to it if Abraham went. Abraham did. How was the obedience to God's command initialized (for lack of a less technical term) in Abram though? Implicit here is that Abram believed God. His obedience allowed him to follow through with God's command to him (this echoes the statement of the Pauline influence letter of Hebrews in 11:8). Once Abraham traveled there, God gave him the promise that his descendants would inherit the land. So we can infer that if Abram had not obeyed, Abram would not have received the promise. But more than that, if Abram had not trusted God, he would not have obeyed God, and therefore would not have received the promise.
It is because of that that Paul can say that the promise was received not merely by faith, but by the righteousness of faith (synonymous with the obedience that comes from faith). Both the righteousness/obedience and the trust in God are necessary. This serves as a natural contrast against the righteousness that comes from the Law, as opposed to merely a belief that does not follow through with obedience.
Now there still is the matter on what basis can Abram would become an "heir of the world." There are two possible interpretation of this phrase. One is that Abraham would receive the entire world. However, there is not Old Testament precedent for this and that premise is also lacking the context of Romans. So the second interpretation would be taking "world" as referring to the world of people, Jews and Gentiles (or circumcised and uncircumcised) alike. So a better translation would be "the world's heir," identifying Abraham as the one through whom the world, Jews and Gentiles alike, would receive an inheritance. This comes from Paul transplanting his idea of both circumcised and uncircumcised alike having Abraham as a "father" upon the "descendants" of Genesis 12:7. It is in all likelihood not a direct reference to Genesis 17:4, as it does not directly talk about inheritance that would constitute a reference of being an "heir" (though doubtlessly it influences Paul's view of "father" and "descendants" as 4:16-17 shows, which in turn affected his interpretation of Genesis 12:7).
Nor does Paul mean to see "the promise" as collective of all the episodes centered around the covenant between God and Abraham in addition to Genesis 12. It is an interesting interpretation on the part of some, such as Douglas Moo. However, it is rather unnatural, especially considering that Paul is developing his argumentation from specific episodes and not so much general themes or ideas. Plus a specific phrase like "the righteousness of faith" suggests a particular means of reception, which would more naturally be taken as a reference to an episode of the "righteousness of faith" where it could be seen as being the cause of reception, rather than merely a broad generalization with no one specific episode in mind about the nature of the promise (which it would have to be if "the promise" is collective).
Having now established through Abram's life and how what he found (look back to 4:1), Paul goes on to state that the Law if it is essentially is mutually exclusive to faith and the promise in verse 14. In other words, it can not be a mixture of the two. The reason why is because the Law ultimately brings about wrath for those who are under it and thus invalidates those who do have the Law to follow it. Also, Paul is not validating an antinomian premise when he states "where there is no law, there is no violation." He is not affirming there is no type of law at all, but rather he is giving a general proposition. If the Law of Moses is not in effect for the the inheritance, then it brings up no violation that takes away the right of inheritance. There is in fact another law that is in effect than can disqualify one, but it is the law of faith (or the righteousness that comes from trust in God) that Paul has talked about.
From his argumentation, Paul infers that the inheritance is received by faith. There are two results from that. First off, grace is shown to people on the basis of faith, as his argumentation showed 4:1-8. Secondly, the promise of an inheritance is not given only to those who have the Law, in exclusion of the rest of the world, but it is given to all who have the same type of faith that Abraham had (notice Abraham has an example of faith, just as Christ is an example of faith in chapter 3).
Here Paul then calls Abraham father of everyone, based upon the statement of Genesis 17:5 that he quotes. This goes back to the expanded meaning of "father," where Abraham walks in the life of faith and the others follows in the pattern he had. However, it is at this point then that Paul goes on to allow Abraham's "fatherhood" to be more than just a mere example-copy relationship.
Paul then makes a statement that has resounds with the statement of the John the Baptist, as recorded in Matthew 3:9 (amongst other places). I would contend the reference of life to the dead is a implicit reference to the idea that John the Baptist presented about raising up (or resurrecting) children of Abraham from lifeless (or dead) rocks. After that then, Paul proclaims that God can speak into existence that which is not yet the case. Or in other words, those who are not descendants of Abraham God can make them descendants. So in addition to the example-copy meaning of "father," Paul also includes a more "spiritual" connotation to it (see Galatians 3:29). While generally double meanings are to be avoided in interpretations, Paul here purposefully does it to convey both the idea of following a pattern and the idea of a spiritual family (however one should not press the concept of spiritual family too far in an exegesis of Romans).
While I initially intended to complete chapter 4 in this post, it was getting rather long so I conclude it here at a logical stopping point. The next post I should in fact finish Romans 4.
First, my comments on the first eight verses of chapter 4 fall in line with a covenantal view where one freely enters into the covenant but must have works to remain in the covenant and for the covenant to be fulfilled by God (BTW I might soon do a post on Abraham's covenant to validate this). In other words, at first one is justified freely by faith, but if there is time to, one must have works in addition to trust in God to remain justified. But with that said, I find impressing the idea of covenant upon Romans any more than as simply a possible explanatory framework of how Paul's theology developed is pressing too much on Paul's message in my opinion.
Secondly, I alluded to this point a little bit, but I failed to develop it further. The importance of faith in justification is that it is by faith that righteous character springs forth. Paul states in 1:18. Also, this is central to Paul's discourse on Jesus' faith. Faith is the human means of obtaining righteous obedience. This is important point to see in Paul's development of faith in order to see what Paul is stating in 4:1-8; not that faith is some part of a checklist needed to be fulfilled to be justified, but rather that it is the human means by which the righteous life may be lived and hence it is acceptable to justification.
Third, while I concluded my previous post at verse 8, it would in fact be a mistake to think that Paul's primary motivation was to prove that works were not necessary to first become justified. He does on the side prove that point, but it is only a minor point with him in this letter. He is trying to prove that a person does not need the works of the Law in order to become justified. The point is made by noting that Abraham was justified by faith before he was ever circumcised. If God credited Abraham with righteousness before circumcision and if God is one who does not change His dealings with humanity (implicit in Paul's argumentation), then the conclusion that could be drawn is that it was never necessary to be circumcised to be justified (and by implication the Law as a whole).
What was the role of circumcision then? Paul states that it was a seal or a sign of the righteousness he had beforehand when he trusted in God. The question that must be asked here about this is whether this seal was a sign of God seeing Abraham as righteous or as a sign that Abraham was vindicated by his obedience in being circumcised. If we presume that Paul is pulling this from what is said in the Old Testament narrative (specifically in Genesis 17 here), the latter is probable. There is no statement from God to the effect of "this is a sign of my acceptance of you" or "you are righteous, therefore I ask you to be circumcised" Rather, God simply commands Abraham and his household to be circumcised as part of the covenant. As the narrative reveals in Genesis 17:23, Abraham obeys God's command. It is from this part of the patriarchal story that Paul concludes that circumcision was a sign of righteousness. Or another way to put it is that circumcision is the sign that Abraham is obedient to God.
Now faith was also pivotal to the story of Abraham. Because Abraham trusted that God would fulfill the covenant He had made and because Abraham believed that God would give him a son to be his heir (compare Genesis 15:1-6 with 17:15-21), Abraham in turn obeyed God's command for circumcision. So faith here is the human means needed to accomplish righteous obedience.
What is the result of all this? Paul states there are two conclusions. First off, the uncircumcised who do not have Abraham has a genealogical father may be a father for all those that do believe. Once again, this must be seen in light of the Genesis story. Paul is stating that the whole world can in effect become part of Abraham's promise regarding his descendants. The concept of "father" and the promise Abraham received is being broadened by Paul. It now being envisioned as meaning a person who does something that other people then do later on (though not necessarily by cognitively following the example of the "father").
Paul then shifts focus to those of the circumcision, which is synonymous with being Jewish. Abraham was to be a father to them too, but there was another qualification they needed. They needed to follow in Abraham's example of faith. Otherwise, Abraham is their father only in the biological sense, but not necessarily a true descendant according to the promise given to Abraham (mentioned in the follow verse). This coincides with the thrust of Romans 9, which we will address more at that point.
Why then are those who are not circumcised included? And why are those who circumcised must also have faith? Because the promise Abraham received came when he had trust in God but had not yet been circumcised, although it is a bit more than that. How exactly was this promise received? And what exactly is the promise that Abraham is referring to? It is all likely a reference to the story of Genesis 12.
In Genesis 12, Abram is told two things. First, he was told to leave his home and go into a new land that God would show him. Secondly, as a result of going he would then be made a great nation and all families of the earth would be blessed because of him (the Hebrew waw-consecutive verb would argue this). What happens next? Abram goes off. As a result, God then says that his descendants would inherit the land he had come to (the waw-consecutive again).
Lets read between the lines in this story. God commanded and conjoined a blessing to it if Abraham went. Abraham did. How was the obedience to God's command initialized (for lack of a less technical term) in Abram though? Implicit here is that Abram believed God. His obedience allowed him to follow through with God's command to him (this echoes the statement of the Pauline influence letter of Hebrews in 11:8). Once Abraham traveled there, God gave him the promise that his descendants would inherit the land. So we can infer that if Abram had not obeyed, Abram would not have received the promise. But more than that, if Abram had not trusted God, he would not have obeyed God, and therefore would not have received the promise.
It is because of that that Paul can say that the promise was received not merely by faith, but by the righteousness of faith (synonymous with the obedience that comes from faith). Both the righteousness/obedience and the trust in God are necessary. This serves as a natural contrast against the righteousness that comes from the Law, as opposed to merely a belief that does not follow through with obedience.
Now there still is the matter on what basis can Abram would become an "heir of the world." There are two possible interpretation of this phrase. One is that Abraham would receive the entire world. However, there is not Old Testament precedent for this and that premise is also lacking the context of Romans. So the second interpretation would be taking "world" as referring to the world of people, Jews and Gentiles (or circumcised and uncircumcised) alike. So a better translation would be "the world's heir," identifying Abraham as the one through whom the world, Jews and Gentiles alike, would receive an inheritance. This comes from Paul transplanting his idea of both circumcised and uncircumcised alike having Abraham as a "father" upon the "descendants" of Genesis 12:7. It is in all likelihood not a direct reference to Genesis 17:4, as it does not directly talk about inheritance that would constitute a reference of being an "heir" (though doubtlessly it influences Paul's view of "father" and "descendants" as 4:16-17 shows, which in turn affected his interpretation of Genesis 12:7).
Nor does Paul mean to see "the promise" as collective of all the episodes centered around the covenant between God and Abraham in addition to Genesis 12. It is an interesting interpretation on the part of some, such as Douglas Moo. However, it is rather unnatural, especially considering that Paul is developing his argumentation from specific episodes and not so much general themes or ideas. Plus a specific phrase like "the righteousness of faith" suggests a particular means of reception, which would more naturally be taken as a reference to an episode of the "righteousness of faith" where it could be seen as being the cause of reception, rather than merely a broad generalization with no one specific episode in mind about the nature of the promise (which it would have to be if "the promise" is collective).
Having now established through Abram's life and how what he found (look back to 4:1), Paul goes on to state that the Law if it is essentially is mutually exclusive to faith and the promise in verse 14. In other words, it can not be a mixture of the two. The reason why is because the Law ultimately brings about wrath for those who are under it and thus invalidates those who do have the Law to follow it. Also, Paul is not validating an antinomian premise when he states "where there is no law, there is no violation." He is not affirming there is no type of law at all, but rather he is giving a general proposition. If the Law of Moses is not in effect for the the inheritance, then it brings up no violation that takes away the right of inheritance. There is in fact another law that is in effect than can disqualify one, but it is the law of faith (or the righteousness that comes from trust in God) that Paul has talked about.
From his argumentation, Paul infers that the inheritance is received by faith. There are two results from that. First off, grace is shown to people on the basis of faith, as his argumentation showed 4:1-8. Secondly, the promise of an inheritance is not given only to those who have the Law, in exclusion of the rest of the world, but it is given to all who have the same type of faith that Abraham had (notice Abraham has an example of faith, just as Christ is an example of faith in chapter 3).
Here Paul then calls Abraham father of everyone, based upon the statement of Genesis 17:5 that he quotes. This goes back to the expanded meaning of "father," where Abraham walks in the life of faith and the others follows in the pattern he had. However, it is at this point then that Paul goes on to allow Abraham's "fatherhood" to be more than just a mere example-copy relationship.
Paul then makes a statement that has resounds with the statement of the John the Baptist, as recorded in Matthew 3:9 (amongst other places). I would contend the reference of life to the dead is a implicit reference to the idea that John the Baptist presented about raising up (or resurrecting) children of Abraham from lifeless (or dead) rocks. After that then, Paul proclaims that God can speak into existence that which is not yet the case. Or in other words, those who are not descendants of Abraham God can make them descendants. So in addition to the example-copy meaning of "father," Paul also includes a more "spiritual" connotation to it (see Galatians 3:29). While generally double meanings are to be avoided in interpretations, Paul here purposefully does it to convey both the idea of following a pattern and the idea of a spiritual family (however one should not press the concept of spiritual family too far in an exegesis of Romans).
While I initially intended to complete chapter 4 in this post, it was getting rather long so I conclude it here at a logical stopping point. The next post I should in fact finish Romans 4.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Synopsis on Romans (Part 3 - Chapter 4:1-8)
As I sit here on the night before church, being faced with insomnia, I figure I might as well go ahead and get back into my series on Romans. Since it is a bit to absorb, I will only address the first 8 verses of chapter 4.
At the conclusion of chapter 2, the hypothetical Jewish objector asks if what Paul says is true, how then how can one boast that they have worked and reach the level of justification. Paul's answer is that they can not and that is because of "law of faith" (or the "righteousness that is based on faith" in Philippians 3:9, or the "obedience of faith" in Romans 1:5).
In response then, the hypothetical objector would bring up the topic of Abraham and the things he had found. Abraham received the promises from God because of his works, specifically the sacrificing of Isaac (see Genesis 22) and we justified because of his works (see also James 2:21-23). If these works allowed Abraham to be righteous in God's eyes, then he has ever reason to boast about obtaining justification by his own striving. However, Paul's response is simple. "Not before God." Paul goes on to explain the rationale in the 4:3-9.
Paul first quotes from Genesis 15:6, where Abraham believed God. The result was that this trust in God was accounted to Abraham as righteousness. The natural meaning of this phrase isn't to say that Abraham was accounted something he did not have (IE to impute Christ's righteousness to Abraham), but rather to say that Abraham's faith came from a righteous principle that Abraham had. What Paul proves here is that justification is, at least in some part by faith. This is the beginning of his response and not proof in and of itself. Paul's quotation says nothing of works, nor does it exclude works.
To move on further, Paul uses the analogy of a person who works for an employer. When a person works, they receive a wage. But then that wage is not due to any favor (or grace) from the employer. It is simply what is due.
Many people interpret Paul here to be referring to any person that tries to work their way to salvation, but this is not Paul's point whatsoever. He is explaining the promises Abraham received. Abraham obeyed God, which showed he was righteous. Therefore, if that is the case, a person who is righteous should indeed be declared righteous.
Paul is also not referring to the idea of merit. We should be careful to make too much of the metaphor to pull out of it a theology about merit. The wage (justification from works) is not due because of "merit" in Paul's eyes, but rather because it is the truth. To do otherwise would be to lie, so in that sense works are due a wage.
One important thing to note here. When I speak of a person being righteous, it does not mean they are perfectly righteous. Just as being a sinner doesn't mean a person only sins, it's opposite, righteousness, does not mean a person does only what is right. It simply means they practice what is right and by implication do not practice what is wrong. It does NOT mean perfection.
But Paul now give the example of the person who does not have works. He has shifted away from someone who has been obedient like Abraham. He is now talking about someone who has in fact been disobedient. If one were to evaluate their works, no one, including God, would consider them a righteous person. However, while they do not have works, they do "trust in God to justify the ungodly." As they are, they are ungodly and unrighteous. They deserve nothing from God. However, what does God do? He credits righteousness without having any works in their lives to base that upon. This is an act of grace from God. They don't have to have works to become accepted by God, but they are freely and graciously accepted by God immediately. Their trust in God leads to justification and is the application of Genesis 15:6 which he had just quoted.
What Paul has given here is the case of the obedient Christian on one hand and the ungodly man who has recognized his sins and trusts in God. Implicit with this second person is a contrition over their sins and repentance. They are, in a sense, a new convert. They do not have to work first to get God to accept them. By sincere repentance and trust in God, God will accept them immediately.
What is the reason for that? Paul doesn't explicitly give it here, but let me attempt to give a theological explanation. When a man repents and trusts in God to wash him clean of his sins, God in turn grants this request by making them a new creation (or by making them born again, regeneration, etc.). The result is that they have a principle of righteousness in their hearts now imparted to them by God through the Holy Spirit. So while they have no works to base justification upon, God credits their trust in Him to righteousness because He has given them a righteous principle from which they will then live by. The result is that they will have the works of a righteous man, like Abraham.
Paul does not stop with a simple statement that the ungodly may obtain justification. He does on to quote from a Psalm of David. The Psalm he quotes from is Psalm 32, which is a psalm of repentance. Implicit here to Paul and the Jewish readers is that it refers to a person who been disobedient to God, and could and would be called ungodly. However, in this psalm of repentance, David rights that he confessed his guilt and God forgave him (32:5). Furthermore, this is related to the topic Paul is talking about because in 32:11 David writes "he who trusts in the Lord, lovingkindness with surround them." Taking all this into consideration, Paul is right to judge that David is speaking of the blessing to those who God credits righteousness apart from works, because the psalm of repentance implies a man whose works do not show him to be righteous.
Paul quotes from the first one and half verses of Psalm 32. Two benefits are spoken of here. Forgiveness and sin not being imputed/credited. If sin is not credited to someone, it would imply that righteousness would be credited to them. Secondly, since they are forgiven, God is no longer angry with them.
A couple important things to note though. First off, if justification means forgiveness itself (defining justification as God in a trial setting absolves us of any guilt from what we have done), then Paul makes not sense here. He is needlessly redundant when he talks about the blessing of those who are credited with righteousness, since that phrase is used synonymously with justification in Paul's writing. Rather, it is better to understand that Paul is showing that the person who is justified without works is indeed forgiven by God. Paul quotes from 32:2 to show that forgiveness and justification are indeed linked, but the terms do not mean the same thing.
So what Paul has gone on to show by this quotation that there are indeed people who have no works, and that God forgives them and justifies them before they can do any works as a righteous person, if they only trust in Him (and implicitly repent like the Psalmist did). If that is the case, then this goes to show why Abraham or no other man can boast before God about their justification. Before they did any righteous works in according with justification, God saw them as righteous when they had lived wickedly. God first justified, so they did not earn their way up to that state. They merely obeyed afterwards, in line with God's judgment of them as being righteous. God worked first, then man responded.
I'll pick up the rest of chapter 4 in my next post.
At the conclusion of chapter 2, the hypothetical Jewish objector asks if what Paul says is true, how then how can one boast that they have worked and reach the level of justification. Paul's answer is that they can not and that is because of "law of faith" (or the "righteousness that is based on faith" in Philippians 3:9, or the "obedience of faith" in Romans 1:5).
In response then, the hypothetical objector would bring up the topic of Abraham and the things he had found. Abraham received the promises from God because of his works, specifically the sacrificing of Isaac (see Genesis 22) and we justified because of his works (see also James 2:21-23). If these works allowed Abraham to be righteous in God's eyes, then he has ever reason to boast about obtaining justification by his own striving. However, Paul's response is simple. "Not before God." Paul goes on to explain the rationale in the 4:3-9.
Paul first quotes from Genesis 15:6, where Abraham believed God. The result was that this trust in God was accounted to Abraham as righteousness. The natural meaning of this phrase isn't to say that Abraham was accounted something he did not have (IE to impute Christ's righteousness to Abraham), but rather to say that Abraham's faith came from a righteous principle that Abraham had. What Paul proves here is that justification is, at least in some part by faith. This is the beginning of his response and not proof in and of itself. Paul's quotation says nothing of works, nor does it exclude works.
To move on further, Paul uses the analogy of a person who works for an employer. When a person works, they receive a wage. But then that wage is not due to any favor (or grace) from the employer. It is simply what is due.
Many people interpret Paul here to be referring to any person that tries to work their way to salvation, but this is not Paul's point whatsoever. He is explaining the promises Abraham received. Abraham obeyed God, which showed he was righteous. Therefore, if that is the case, a person who is righteous should indeed be declared righteous.
Paul is also not referring to the idea of merit. We should be careful to make too much of the metaphor to pull out of it a theology about merit. The wage (justification from works) is not due because of "merit" in Paul's eyes, but rather because it is the truth. To do otherwise would be to lie, so in that sense works are due a wage.
One important thing to note here. When I speak of a person being righteous, it does not mean they are perfectly righteous. Just as being a sinner doesn't mean a person only sins, it's opposite, righteousness, does not mean a person does only what is right. It simply means they practice what is right and by implication do not practice what is wrong. It does NOT mean perfection.
But Paul now give the example of the person who does not have works. He has shifted away from someone who has been obedient like Abraham. He is now talking about someone who has in fact been disobedient. If one were to evaluate their works, no one, including God, would consider them a righteous person. However, while they do not have works, they do "trust in God to justify the ungodly." As they are, they are ungodly and unrighteous. They deserve nothing from God. However, what does God do? He credits righteousness without having any works in their lives to base that upon. This is an act of grace from God. They don't have to have works to become accepted by God, but they are freely and graciously accepted by God immediately. Their trust in God leads to justification and is the application of Genesis 15:6 which he had just quoted.
What Paul has given here is the case of the obedient Christian on one hand and the ungodly man who has recognized his sins and trusts in God. Implicit with this second person is a contrition over their sins and repentance. They are, in a sense, a new convert. They do not have to work first to get God to accept them. By sincere repentance and trust in God, God will accept them immediately.
What is the reason for that? Paul doesn't explicitly give it here, but let me attempt to give a theological explanation. When a man repents and trusts in God to wash him clean of his sins, God in turn grants this request by making them a new creation (or by making them born again, regeneration, etc.). The result is that they have a principle of righteousness in their hearts now imparted to them by God through the Holy Spirit. So while they have no works to base justification upon, God credits their trust in Him to righteousness because He has given them a righteous principle from which they will then live by. The result is that they will have the works of a righteous man, like Abraham.
Paul does not stop with a simple statement that the ungodly may obtain justification. He does on to quote from a Psalm of David. The Psalm he quotes from is Psalm 32, which is a psalm of repentance. Implicit here to Paul and the Jewish readers is that it refers to a person who been disobedient to God, and could and would be called ungodly. However, in this psalm of repentance, David rights that he confessed his guilt and God forgave him (32:5). Furthermore, this is related to the topic Paul is talking about because in 32:11 David writes "he who trusts in the Lord, lovingkindness with surround them." Taking all this into consideration, Paul is right to judge that David is speaking of the blessing to those who God credits righteousness apart from works, because the psalm of repentance implies a man whose works do not show him to be righteous.
Paul quotes from the first one and half verses of Psalm 32. Two benefits are spoken of here. Forgiveness and sin not being imputed/credited. If sin is not credited to someone, it would imply that righteousness would be credited to them. Secondly, since they are forgiven, God is no longer angry with them.
A couple important things to note though. First off, if justification means forgiveness itself (defining justification as God in a trial setting absolves us of any guilt from what we have done), then Paul makes not sense here. He is needlessly redundant when he talks about the blessing of those who are credited with righteousness, since that phrase is used synonymously with justification in Paul's writing. Rather, it is better to understand that Paul is showing that the person who is justified without works is indeed forgiven by God. Paul quotes from 32:2 to show that forgiveness and justification are indeed linked, but the terms do not mean the same thing.
So what Paul has gone on to show by this quotation that there are indeed people who have no works, and that God forgives them and justifies them before they can do any works as a righteous person, if they only trust in Him (and implicitly repent like the Psalmist did). If that is the case, then this goes to show why Abraham or no other man can boast before God about their justification. Before they did any righteous works in according with justification, God saw them as righteous when they had lived wickedly. God first justified, so they did not earn their way up to that state. They merely obeyed afterwards, in line with God's judgment of them as being righteous. God worked first, then man responded.
I'll pick up the rest of chapter 4 in my next post.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Synopsis on Romans (Part 2 - Chapter 3)
I have decided to not merely do separate posts on each section I divide Romans into because it would cause me to miss over too many issues in certain chapters or I would have to write much longer posts (my length is usually fairly long as it is). Instead, it will be done more by ear, and I may do one chapter in a certain post or I may do more than one in another post.
In Romans 2, Paul proclaims that being a Jew and having part in the Jewish system (the Law, circumcision, etc.) does not mean that judgment will be partial to the Jews, but instead each man will be judged by what they know and what people know, whether Jews or Gentiles, is not very different. This leads the hypothetical Jew to ask what benefit was there to being a Jew and having circumcision (which signifies being in covenant with God), as Paul writes in 3:1. Paul responds that there were many. However, he mentions only one at the time, that is, that they had the oracles of God. They were vehicles of God's speaking to the world. Another way of putting it is that they were God's prophetic nation.
However, this would not satisfy the objections of the hypothetical Jew. God had made a promise that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would flourish. God was to be faithful towards their children, and yet some did not trust in God. Does God cease to be a faithful God who is true to His word because of the lack of trust that some of the Israelites had? In other words, is God breaking His promise? Paul's answer is no. Even if everyone lies, God is going to be found to be truthful. Furthermore, the unrighteousness of humanity goes on to serve to show that God is righteous.
That leads up to the next hypothetical objection. If humanity's unrighteousness displays that God is righteous, is God then unrighteous? Is God an accomplice or a partaker in that unrighteousness? Paul's answer is not like a juridical argument that shows specifically how God is not an accomplice, but rather he simply states that God must be righteous, or otherwise there can not be way that He could possibly judge the world, since He Himself would be unrighteous. Paul logically shows that God is not unrighteous, but he doesn't show how God is cleared, as if he feels like there is no need to clear God.
One matter of exegesis in verse 5. There Paul refers to the righteousness of God, but here the context is clearly in reference to God's own nature. Should we not conclude that every usage of this phrase in Romans refers to God's own character, instead of more specifically the character that we are to have in this life? Not necessarily. To dive a little bit into the Greek, in 3:5 the word order has God first, whereas in the other passages, righteousness is mentioned first. This word order serves to show the emphasis that Paul is given to the concept. In other passages where righteousness is mentioned first, Paul is concern about the ethical realm. However, in 3:5 Paul is concern about more about the vindication of God Himself. Furthermore though, this usage, though a bit fluid, never has a drastically different meaning in its different usages, but rather it only has different emphases.
Moving on further, Paul presents yet another hypothetical objection. If a person's unrighteousness shows the very nature of God and His justice, something good comes from of it. Why then does God still judge when something good comes from it? The objection is taken further to apparently be a justification for wickedness in saying that a person should sin so that God might be glorified. Paul does not directly debunk this claim, but allows its foolishness that is apparent to be its own down fall while he simply states that God's condemnation of that person is just (irregardless of what good may come from it).
Now all that Paul has stated applies to the Israelites. As the prophets (the oracles) repeatedly make witness to, they too fell under God's judgment. Or in other words, even though God made a promise to be faithful to the descendants of Israel (in which He has still kept the promise, which Romans 9 gets into), the judgment of the unrighteous ones among the Israelites displays God's glory and righteousness as well. It serves to teach the other Jews how one should live by their example of disobedience (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 for a similar idea).
Considering that the Israelites had examples in their past that show God's judgment and that they had the oracles of God to teach them, the hypothetical Jew might conclude that they were better morally that the Gentiles, since they had a plethora of ethical teachings and examples to guide them. However, Paul's answer is that both Jew and Greeks have fallen into sin. He goes on to show this by compiling a set of quotations from Psalms and Isaiah in 3:10-18. These books spoke to those under the Law, and therefore it was directed to the Israelites and showed that they too were guilty of sin.
One other point to make here though. These verses are commonly taken here as if Paul's purpose here is to establish the universal nature of humanity (especially for both unbeliever and believer). That is not his purpose though. His purpose is to show that the Law spoke against the Israelites and their sinfulness. Therefore, we can not draw conclusions on the nature of humanity based upon Paul's usage of these quotations, but rather we can only derive conclusions on them from the context in which they came from. Of course one must allow for literary techniques, such as hyperbole, to be used, especially in the Psalms. However, since human nature and exegesis of Psalms is beyond the scope of this post, I will leave it at that other than to reemphasize that Paul is not trying to establish in and of itself a universal teaching on the nature of humanity, but only to show that the Jews too were guilty.
At this point then, in verse 3:20, Paul explains why the Israelites were not better ethically than the Gentiles. The reason is, simply enough, that the performing of the works of the Law in and of themselves makes no one righteous before God. The reason is because the Law only teaches about sin, but it does not teach us everything to do that is right. In other words, it is not a perfect, all-encompassing moral code that teaches everything there is about righteousness. There are "gaps" in its teaching (although I would say there are certain reasons for those "gaps," but one can get some of my thoughts on that here, although I have modified my views a bit since then). One could do everything it says and that by itself would not make a person righteous before God (justified).
Once again, when we see the context, justification is to be taken as judicial, but with a regard for the ethical status of the person. To be justified is to be righteous in character in God's eyes. Keep in mind that 1-19 has the theme of unrighteous acts and Paul's shows that the Israelites were guilty of being heinous sinners. Therefore, when Paul explains why, we must see justification with some regard for ethical matters, or Paul statement makes no sense. There is more to say about the nature of justification, but I will save that for chapter 4 (although one can view my exegesis on Romans 3 and 4 to know what I say about justification in chapter 4).
Now, if the Law can not justify because it only teaches about sin, but not a comprehensive teaching on righteousness, then in what manner of life must a person follow in order to be seen as righteous by God? Or, how can we have that complete teaching on righteousness? That is the issue Paul addresses in 3:21-26. But before I go further, I have a couple points of translation to make.
First off, in regards to faith and where it should be translated as "faith in Christ," "the faith of Christ," or "the faithfulness of Christ," I believe the second option is the proper translation. I will not go into detail as to why, but I will say in my study of the phrase and the context of its usages, I find it only makes sense if we render it "the faith of Christ." I can go into detail behind my rationale for that (although I give a bit in my exegesis of Romans 3-4), but I will reserve that for later explanation if it is needed. Secondly, in Romans 3:25 I am of the opinion that the proper translation would be "God publicly displayed Him through faith as a mercy seat by His blood." Once again, I can explain my rationale for that, but at a later time in another post or in the comments section.
Now in Romans 3:21, we should see the contrast between the knowledge of sin that comes by the Law in verse 20, and the righteousness of God being disclosed (or rather being given as knowledge to others). What Paul is bringing about then is something that reveals what righteousness truly is. How then is this righteousness revealed? Through the faith of Jesus Christ. Recall back to Romans 1:17 where it is said that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith. Paul is now building upon that and established that the moral character that God has that we too are to have is revealed in the trust that Jesus had in God in His time on the earth. By His trust, He endured the sin of others to the point of death while never fighting back. It would require great faith in the resurrection for Him to allow Himself to be captured by the Father's will and then to be able to endure the temptation that being insulted might in turn cost. In other words, Jesus' trust in God enabled Him to totally reject Himself for the will of the Father.
Now, Paul goes on to say it is revealed to all who believe. He is establishing that regardless of Jew or Gentile, the righteousness of God is for everyone (as opposed to the Law of Moses itself which was purposed only for Jews and Jewish converts). The reason it is available for all is because all have fallen short of the glory of God and need knowledge of this righteousness. It was necessary for the Jew too because the Law was obviously not making Israelites holy and obedient to God. I will also say more on the "glory of God" in a moment.
Those who believe as spoken of in verse 22 are justified by the grace that is in the redemption of Jesus Christ. Paul says two things in this. By having the righteousness of God revealed through the faith of Christ, they too could be justified by God by trusting in God also. But it goes further than this to say that it was possible for them through the redemption (the freedom) in Jesus Christ. In other words, justification is merely obtained by trying to mimic Jesus Christ and His trust in God, but it is only possible through a change of life that is had in Jesus Christ (which is in part through His death, as Paul establishes in Romans 5, 6, and 8). By the redemption, we are enabled to follow through in the pattern that Jesus has set forth for us.
Now Paul in verse 25 goes on to explain what he has spoken of in 21-24. There are a few things to take note of.
First off, he speaks of Jesus as a mercy seat. In the Old Testament, the mercy seat was the place where atonement was made. But furthermore, it was the place where the cloud of God (what might also be termed the presence or the glory of God) would appear. So, in referring to Jesus as the mercy seat, Paul says that he both is an atonement, but the very place where the presence of God is. So by being the very presence of God (or as Hebrews puts it, the exact representation), He is capable of revealing the type of righteousness that God has.
Secondly, Jesus is said to be revealed publicly. This is significant because the holy of holies, in which the mercy seat was placed, was not to be entered by just anyone but only by the high priest AFTER he had atoned for his own sins. So in the Old Testament, the mercy seat was private, but in Romans the mercy seat of Jesus Christ is publicly shown. Furthermore, God tolerated the sins of the people whom should not at all enter into the presence of God in the mercy seat. Beforehand, all people had fallen short of the mark necessary to enter into the presence of God (or the glory of God). But now God tolerates it (not forgives it though there) in order that He may show His righteousness that He has that we are to live by in this life. Or as verse 26 explains it, in order that God might be righteous and "the one who justifies those who have the faith of Christ." In order for God to continue to be righteous and accept the sinners, He needs to make it possible for humanity to live righteously (which needs both knowledge and the spiritual freedom to do so). In order for humanity to reach that level, they must know the standard they are to follow, which is revealed in Christ Jesus.
Finally, note that it is says that Jesus was publicly demonstrated through faith. This may be a bit awkward if this refers specifically to our faith being the means of public demonstration. However, if it is Christ's faith, it makes more sense for faith to be the means of public demonstration in blood, as His truth in God allowed Him to go upon the cross.
Now this brings us to the hypothetical objections again. The first question asks where is the place for boasting in all this. The meaning is, how can we claim that we have worked up to the point where we are justified. But Paul states this is excluded and that it is excluded by the law of faith. Now Paul doesn't deny the importance of works here, but rather begins to establish that a trust is the foundation upon which justification may be had initially (I will build more upon that in chapter 4 though) and that works themselves do not bring us up to the level that we may be justified (that is not to say anything about the roles of works after justification has been obtained).
Now the hypothetical Jewish objector wondered if the exclusion of boasting was by the a law of works, which in context is in reference to the works of the Law (of Moses). As Paul states, it is by a law based upon faith (note that law and righteousness have a natural relation to each other). The reason is because the works of the Law can not hope to change a person that they might become justified. And why is this? Because God is God of both Jews and Gentiles and so that both groups may be justified.
This leads us to our final objection in chapter 3. The hypothetical Jewish objector might suppose that Paul was denying the Law, saying that it is now nullified because of this doctrine about faith. Perhaps in mind here is the words of Jesus here in Matthew 5:17-18. What Paul says simply is that is not the case. It remains established. It is not of no value. It is not nullified. How this is the case Paul does not address much, but what little he does is in Romans 8 (which we will address when we get there).
Now, for my next post, chapter 4.
In Romans 2, Paul proclaims that being a Jew and having part in the Jewish system (the Law, circumcision, etc.) does not mean that judgment will be partial to the Jews, but instead each man will be judged by what they know and what people know, whether Jews or Gentiles, is not very different. This leads the hypothetical Jew to ask what benefit was there to being a Jew and having circumcision (which signifies being in covenant with God), as Paul writes in 3:1. Paul responds that there were many. However, he mentions only one at the time, that is, that they had the oracles of God. They were vehicles of God's speaking to the world. Another way of putting it is that they were God's prophetic nation.
However, this would not satisfy the objections of the hypothetical Jew. God had made a promise that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would flourish. God was to be faithful towards their children, and yet some did not trust in God. Does God cease to be a faithful God who is true to His word because of the lack of trust that some of the Israelites had? In other words, is God breaking His promise? Paul's answer is no. Even if everyone lies, God is going to be found to be truthful. Furthermore, the unrighteousness of humanity goes on to serve to show that God is righteous.
That leads up to the next hypothetical objection. If humanity's unrighteousness displays that God is righteous, is God then unrighteous? Is God an accomplice or a partaker in that unrighteousness? Paul's answer is not like a juridical argument that shows specifically how God is not an accomplice, but rather he simply states that God must be righteous, or otherwise there can not be way that He could possibly judge the world, since He Himself would be unrighteous. Paul logically shows that God is not unrighteous, but he doesn't show how God is cleared, as if he feels like there is no need to clear God.
One matter of exegesis in verse 5. There Paul refers to the righteousness of God, but here the context is clearly in reference to God's own nature. Should we not conclude that every usage of this phrase in Romans refers to God's own character, instead of more specifically the character that we are to have in this life? Not necessarily. To dive a little bit into the Greek, in 3:5 the word order has God first, whereas in the other passages, righteousness is mentioned first. This word order serves to show the emphasis that Paul is given to the concept. In other passages where righteousness is mentioned first, Paul is concern about the ethical realm. However, in 3:5 Paul is concern about more about the vindication of God Himself. Furthermore though, this usage, though a bit fluid, never has a drastically different meaning in its different usages, but rather it only has different emphases.
Moving on further, Paul presents yet another hypothetical objection. If a person's unrighteousness shows the very nature of God and His justice, something good comes from of it. Why then does God still judge when something good comes from it? The objection is taken further to apparently be a justification for wickedness in saying that a person should sin so that God might be glorified. Paul does not directly debunk this claim, but allows its foolishness that is apparent to be its own down fall while he simply states that God's condemnation of that person is just (irregardless of what good may come from it).
Now all that Paul has stated applies to the Israelites. As the prophets (the oracles) repeatedly make witness to, they too fell under God's judgment. Or in other words, even though God made a promise to be faithful to the descendants of Israel (in which He has still kept the promise, which Romans 9 gets into), the judgment of the unrighteous ones among the Israelites displays God's glory and righteousness as well. It serves to teach the other Jews how one should live by their example of disobedience (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 for a similar idea).
Considering that the Israelites had examples in their past that show God's judgment and that they had the oracles of God to teach them, the hypothetical Jew might conclude that they were better morally that the Gentiles, since they had a plethora of ethical teachings and examples to guide them. However, Paul's answer is that both Jew and Greeks have fallen into sin. He goes on to show this by compiling a set of quotations from Psalms and Isaiah in 3:10-18. These books spoke to those under the Law, and therefore it was directed to the Israelites and showed that they too were guilty of sin.
One other point to make here though. These verses are commonly taken here as if Paul's purpose here is to establish the universal nature of humanity (especially for both unbeliever and believer). That is not his purpose though. His purpose is to show that the Law spoke against the Israelites and their sinfulness. Therefore, we can not draw conclusions on the nature of humanity based upon Paul's usage of these quotations, but rather we can only derive conclusions on them from the context in which they came from. Of course one must allow for literary techniques, such as hyperbole, to be used, especially in the Psalms. However, since human nature and exegesis of Psalms is beyond the scope of this post, I will leave it at that other than to reemphasize that Paul is not trying to establish in and of itself a universal teaching on the nature of humanity, but only to show that the Jews too were guilty.
At this point then, in verse 3:20, Paul explains why the Israelites were not better ethically than the Gentiles. The reason is, simply enough, that the performing of the works of the Law in and of themselves makes no one righteous before God. The reason is because the Law only teaches about sin, but it does not teach us everything to do that is right. In other words, it is not a perfect, all-encompassing moral code that teaches everything there is about righteousness. There are "gaps" in its teaching (although I would say there are certain reasons for those "gaps," but one can get some of my thoughts on that here, although I have modified my views a bit since then). One could do everything it says and that by itself would not make a person righteous before God (justified).
Once again, when we see the context, justification is to be taken as judicial, but with a regard for the ethical status of the person. To be justified is to be righteous in character in God's eyes. Keep in mind that 1-19 has the theme of unrighteous acts and Paul's shows that the Israelites were guilty of being heinous sinners. Therefore, when Paul explains why, we must see justification with some regard for ethical matters, or Paul statement makes no sense. There is more to say about the nature of justification, but I will save that for chapter 4 (although one can view my exegesis on Romans 3 and 4 to know what I say about justification in chapter 4).
Now, if the Law can not justify because it only teaches about sin, but not a comprehensive teaching on righteousness, then in what manner of life must a person follow in order to be seen as righteous by God? Or, how can we have that complete teaching on righteousness? That is the issue Paul addresses in 3:21-26. But before I go further, I have a couple points of translation to make.
First off, in regards to faith and where it should be translated as "faith in Christ," "the faith of Christ," or "the faithfulness of Christ," I believe the second option is the proper translation. I will not go into detail as to why, but I will say in my study of the phrase and the context of its usages, I find it only makes sense if we render it "the faith of Christ." I can go into detail behind my rationale for that (although I give a bit in my exegesis of Romans 3-4), but I will reserve that for later explanation if it is needed. Secondly, in Romans 3:25 I am of the opinion that the proper translation would be "God publicly displayed Him through faith as a mercy seat by His blood." Once again, I can explain my rationale for that, but at a later time in another post or in the comments section.
Now in Romans 3:21, we should see the contrast between the knowledge of sin that comes by the Law in verse 20, and the righteousness of God being disclosed (or rather being given as knowledge to others). What Paul is bringing about then is something that reveals what righteousness truly is. How then is this righteousness revealed? Through the faith of Jesus Christ. Recall back to Romans 1:17 where it is said that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith. Paul is now building upon that and established that the moral character that God has that we too are to have is revealed in the trust that Jesus had in God in His time on the earth. By His trust, He endured the sin of others to the point of death while never fighting back. It would require great faith in the resurrection for Him to allow Himself to be captured by the Father's will and then to be able to endure the temptation that being insulted might in turn cost. In other words, Jesus' trust in God enabled Him to totally reject Himself for the will of the Father.
Now, Paul goes on to say it is revealed to all who believe. He is establishing that regardless of Jew or Gentile, the righteousness of God is for everyone (as opposed to the Law of Moses itself which was purposed only for Jews and Jewish converts). The reason it is available for all is because all have fallen short of the glory of God and need knowledge of this righteousness. It was necessary for the Jew too because the Law was obviously not making Israelites holy and obedient to God. I will also say more on the "glory of God" in a moment.
Those who believe as spoken of in verse 22 are justified by the grace that is in the redemption of Jesus Christ. Paul says two things in this. By having the righteousness of God revealed through the faith of Christ, they too could be justified by God by trusting in God also. But it goes further than this to say that it was possible for them through the redemption (the freedom) in Jesus Christ. In other words, justification is merely obtained by trying to mimic Jesus Christ and His trust in God, but it is only possible through a change of life that is had in Jesus Christ (which is in part through His death, as Paul establishes in Romans 5, 6, and 8). By the redemption, we are enabled to follow through in the pattern that Jesus has set forth for us.
Now Paul in verse 25 goes on to explain what he has spoken of in 21-24. There are a few things to take note of.
First off, he speaks of Jesus as a mercy seat. In the Old Testament, the mercy seat was the place where atonement was made. But furthermore, it was the place where the cloud of God (what might also be termed the presence or the glory of God) would appear. So, in referring to Jesus as the mercy seat, Paul says that he both is an atonement, but the very place where the presence of God is. So by being the very presence of God (or as Hebrews puts it, the exact representation), He is capable of revealing the type of righteousness that God has.
Secondly, Jesus is said to be revealed publicly. This is significant because the holy of holies, in which the mercy seat was placed, was not to be entered by just anyone but only by the high priest AFTER he had atoned for his own sins. So in the Old Testament, the mercy seat was private, but in Romans the mercy seat of Jesus Christ is publicly shown. Furthermore, God tolerated the sins of the people whom should not at all enter into the presence of God in the mercy seat. Beforehand, all people had fallen short of the mark necessary to enter into the presence of God (or the glory of God). But now God tolerates it (not forgives it though there) in order that He may show His righteousness that He has that we are to live by in this life. Or as verse 26 explains it, in order that God might be righteous and "the one who justifies those who have the faith of Christ." In order for God to continue to be righteous and accept the sinners, He needs to make it possible for humanity to live righteously (which needs both knowledge and the spiritual freedom to do so). In order for humanity to reach that level, they must know the standard they are to follow, which is revealed in Christ Jesus.
Finally, note that it is says that Jesus was publicly demonstrated through faith. This may be a bit awkward if this refers specifically to our faith being the means of public demonstration. However, if it is Christ's faith, it makes more sense for faith to be the means of public demonstration in blood, as His truth in God allowed Him to go upon the cross.
Now this brings us to the hypothetical objections again. The first question asks where is the place for boasting in all this. The meaning is, how can we claim that we have worked up to the point where we are justified. But Paul states this is excluded and that it is excluded by the law of faith. Now Paul doesn't deny the importance of works here, but rather begins to establish that a trust is the foundation upon which justification may be had initially (I will build more upon that in chapter 4 though) and that works themselves do not bring us up to the level that we may be justified (that is not to say anything about the roles of works after justification has been obtained).
Now the hypothetical Jewish objector wondered if the exclusion of boasting was by the a law of works, which in context is in reference to the works of the Law (of Moses). As Paul states, it is by a law based upon faith (note that law and righteousness have a natural relation to each other). The reason is because the works of the Law can not hope to change a person that they might become justified. And why is this? Because God is God of both Jews and Gentiles and so that both groups may be justified.
This leads us to our final objection in chapter 3. The hypothetical Jewish objector might suppose that Paul was denying the Law, saying that it is now nullified because of this doctrine about faith. Perhaps in mind here is the words of Jesus here in Matthew 5:17-18. What Paul says simply is that is not the case. It remains established. It is not of no value. It is not nullified. How this is the case Paul does not address much, but what little he does is in Romans 8 (which we will address when we get there).
Now, for my next post, chapter 4.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Synopsis on Romans (Part 1 - Chapters 1-2)
I recently had a rather short but invigorating discussion with Chris Tilling on the nature of many things, some theological such as the atonement, but also in regards to more important matters such as the evil that is coffee, tea (except green tea), and chocolate (Chris is still in a poor, pitiful, depraved state when it comes to proper knowledge about the evil of such things. I blame it on Wright). But among other things, we also talked about the whole "righteousness of God" thing and the blasphemous assertions that N.T. Wright makes about it (oh wait... I forget, I am not John Piper!). At which point, he then begged me to enlighten the world with my oh so great wisdom regarding the topic, to correct the errors of the Wrightianists and the Piperians.
Seriously though, Romans has been a letter I have studied for a few years now since it has been made such a pivotal part of Christian theology. I have come to a somewhat different understanding on the book because of what I found to be weaknesses with both the classical Reformed view and the New Perspective view. I have even gone to the point of having the inspiration to write a commentary down the road on the book once I get a grasp of Greek to enlighten to world (though I might instead bring it into darkness). So I am going to give a summary of my view on what I believe Paul is talking about in Romans. By implication, it will address the book of Galatians, but I am not pursuing that mainly because Paul addresses somewhat different questions which would only obscure this series.
Before starting though, let me mention that I have written two posts in the past on Romans (which you can read here and here).
I believe the book of Romans can be divided into 5 sections. Chapters 1-2 discuss the issues of sin and righteousness. Chapters 3-6 discuss the righteousness of God vs the Law of Moses, faith, and the redemption that is in Christ. Chapters 7-8 is kind of a miscellaneous section, though one might say it a development of a person from being under the Law, to being freed by Christ, to having the benefits of the Spirit working in their lives, to looking for the hope of complete redemption (including the creation and the body) and to endure in the face of sufferings because of what is to come. Chapters 9-11 is focused upon the situation with Israel. Finally, chapters 12-16 is focused primarily upon practical matters of behavior. This post will focus upon Chapters 1-2.
Chapter 1 has a contrast between verses 16-17 and 18-32. In the former, Paul explains the nature of the Gospel is power is for that who believe and that God's righteousness is revealed by faith, likewise, to those who trust God (I ascribe to the meaning of faith in Romans the meaning of trust in God, especially to fulfill His promises and to be merciful, and not merely intellectual and creedal acceptance). These two verses I believe set up the primary issues through which Paul develops in the following chapters: the power that is present in salvation and the way that God's righteousness is shown to the world.
The first is rather self-explanatory, but let me clarify my meaning about God's righteousness. Wright says this refers to the covenant faithfulness of God. On the other hand, Piper maintains that it is God's commitment to do what is right. On a purely technical definition that Paul is giving this phrase, I will agree with Piper's assessment more or less. He even goes on to state it is something that we should have but that we do not, and I will agree that in a "natural" state we will not. However, in the end where most Reformed theologians will take that (and I am sure Piper does being Reformed, though I haven't read through his works on the matter) is to say that Christ's righteousness (therefore God's righteousness) is imputed to believers. I, on the other hand, would ascribe that Paul is trying to emphasize the moral standard which we as Christians are to live by in this world (to have a righteousness/perfection like God; see Leviticus 19:2 and Matthew 5:48). Furthermore, the nature of God's righteousness is shown to those who trust God by others who have trust in God (most perfectly by Jesus Christ's trust in God, which I will go into in my next section).
Paul then goes on to contrast the gospel and God's righteousness with the wrath that comes upon "the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (vs. 18). First off, the contrast is between the gospel and wrath and "the righteousness of God" and "ungodliness and unrighteousness." So this is one reason why I ascribe a moral connotation to "the righteousness of God." Secondly though, Paul describes the further and further falling into depravity that certain man came into in a step by step process. With each act of disobedience, God gave the sinners into a deeper level of sinfulness (which could also be referring to as hardening, which is discussed in Romans 9).
Now this is speculation on my part that I am not as confident in, but it may be possible that Paul was purposely just building up the wickedness and depravity of these people (they were probably Gentiles) further and further in order to get some of his Jewish audience to get into an emotional state of presumably righteous indignation against such disobedience. But then all of the sudden, Paul turns the tables in Chapter 2. All those people who were condemning such wickedness, Paul shows to be condemned because they do the exact same thing without repentance. Many of the readers were not better off than those people whom Paul had described and so, unless they repented, would have the same punishment brought upon them. Now Paul doesn't explicitly state that he is directed this towards Jews, because it is probably his purpose at least in part to apply this to everyone who might be such hypocrites, but no doubt Paul had the Jewish population particular, as we can see when we look at what Paul states later on in this chapter.
Paul explains that there will be a judgment of everyone's deeds and that there will be no partiality for the Jews in this judgment. Everyone who desires good will receive eternal life, whereas everyone who obeys unrighteousness will receive wrath (the same wrath as mentioned in Romans 1:18). However, not merely is the same standard applied to everyone, but it is applied to the Jews first and then the Greek (and all Gentiles). Salvation is for the Jews, and so they are first in line, so to speak, to receive the blessings. But likewise, because they have such a privileged position, they will also be the first to receive punishment for which they had done (I will develop the meaning of this concept further in the post on 9-11).
Moving further, the impartial judgment is described in terms of the Law (the Law of Moses to be specific). Everyone who has the Law will be condemned (that is, to be sentenced to death) by it if they disobey it, and everyone who do not have the Law will also be put to death even though they don't have the law. The conclusion that is to be drawn then is that it is the ones who have and follow the Law that are deemed as righteous (justified) by God. Justification/acceptance by God is not automatic by merely having knowledge of the Law (and therefore by implication, by being a Jew).
But there may be a question (though Paul doesn't explicitly state it) as to whether the judgment is really impartial because if the Gentiles perish without the Law, and the Jews perish with the Law, does that mean then that there are different standards, therefore there is some partiality? Paul states that some of the Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law and therefore have a law in themselves. In other word, the same basic things that are contained in the Law of Moses, the rest of the world has because, as Romans 1:20 says, God's qualities can be seen by the world (although, I would add, maybe not perfectly). The implication is that people have a conscience that can condemn or defend them when Jesus comes to judge.
At this point then, Paul asks those who are Jews that boast in God, have the Law, and feel they can instruct the blind if they do the same thing they teach. Many of them don't, and as a result they are part of the reason that the Gentiles blaspheme God. Now, Paul states that circumcision (which can stand for the whole Jewish system) is of no value itself if there is one does not in turn practice things of the Law. Therefore, the person who is true Jew in meaning and the one who is truly circumcised (circumcised in the heart) are those who keep the Law and so is inwardly a Jew and not only a Jew by name, since God's people were to be obedient. Paul concludes this chapter with two things: 1) that this circumcision was by the Spirit instead of by the letter of the Law (more specifically by the standards set forth in the Law of Moses in writing) and 2) that these people do not seek to be praised by men (or in other words, to be seen as good teachers as is implied by the context) but rather to be praised by God).
A couple of comments to add about Romans 2:13 before I conclude this post. First off, as is indicated by context, justification is referring to the character of the person. This has implications for the following usages of the word because it would be problematic to assign a fluid usage of the word where it means a declaration of character in one part, but soon after it means something significantly different. Secondly, there may seem to be a conflict between this verse and the teachings laid out in Romans 3-4. However, if one notes the context, the idea is doing what was intended by the Law, the very intent of the Law (or the spirit of the Law), whereas in Romans 3-4 it is referring to trying to be justified by a strict observance of the letter of the Law (as mentioned in 2:29). Certainly, Paul did not mean to say those that did not have the Law but did the things of it follow the strict, literal things prescribed in the Law of Moses, because how can we expect them to have such a detailed knowledge of something they never saw?
And so that concludes my synopsis on the first two chapters. I find that these two chapters set the stage for the following chapters (as one might expect), such as the way righteousness is revealed, the power in salvation (although those two are mentioned only briefly), justification, the problem of sin, issues regarding the Law, and the meaning of being a Jew. All these issues are thoroughly addressed by Paul in the following chapters. Therefore, in my future posts, I will probably reference heavily these two chapters just to give the context of the letter.
Seriously though, Romans has been a letter I have studied for a few years now since it has been made such a pivotal part of Christian theology. I have come to a somewhat different understanding on the book because of what I found to be weaknesses with both the classical Reformed view and the New Perspective view. I have even gone to the point of having the inspiration to write a commentary down the road on the book once I get a grasp of Greek to enlighten to world (though I might instead bring it into darkness). So I am going to give a summary of my view on what I believe Paul is talking about in Romans. By implication, it will address the book of Galatians, but I am not pursuing that mainly because Paul addresses somewhat different questions which would only obscure this series.
Before starting though, let me mention that I have written two posts in the past on Romans (which you can read here and here).
I believe the book of Romans can be divided into 5 sections. Chapters 1-2 discuss the issues of sin and righteousness. Chapters 3-6 discuss the righteousness of God vs the Law of Moses, faith, and the redemption that is in Christ. Chapters 7-8 is kind of a miscellaneous section, though one might say it a development of a person from being under the Law, to being freed by Christ, to having the benefits of the Spirit working in their lives, to looking for the hope of complete redemption (including the creation and the body) and to endure in the face of sufferings because of what is to come. Chapters 9-11 is focused upon the situation with Israel. Finally, chapters 12-16 is focused primarily upon practical matters of behavior. This post will focus upon Chapters 1-2.
Chapter 1 has a contrast between verses 16-17 and 18-32. In the former, Paul explains the nature of the Gospel is power is for that who believe and that God's righteousness is revealed by faith, likewise, to those who trust God (I ascribe to the meaning of faith in Romans the meaning of trust in God, especially to fulfill His promises and to be merciful, and not merely intellectual and creedal acceptance). These two verses I believe set up the primary issues through which Paul develops in the following chapters: the power that is present in salvation and the way that God's righteousness is shown to the world.
The first is rather self-explanatory, but let me clarify my meaning about God's righteousness. Wright says this refers to the covenant faithfulness of God. On the other hand, Piper maintains that it is God's commitment to do what is right. On a purely technical definition that Paul is giving this phrase, I will agree with Piper's assessment more or less. He even goes on to state it is something that we should have but that we do not, and I will agree that in a "natural" state we will not. However, in the end where most Reformed theologians will take that (and I am sure Piper does being Reformed, though I haven't read through his works on the matter) is to say that Christ's righteousness (therefore God's righteousness) is imputed to believers. I, on the other hand, would ascribe that Paul is trying to emphasize the moral standard which we as Christians are to live by in this world (to have a righteousness/perfection like God; see Leviticus 19:2 and Matthew 5:48). Furthermore, the nature of God's righteousness is shown to those who trust God by others who have trust in God (most perfectly by Jesus Christ's trust in God, which I will go into in my next section).
Paul then goes on to contrast the gospel and God's righteousness with the wrath that comes upon "the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (vs. 18). First off, the contrast is between the gospel and wrath and "the righteousness of God" and "ungodliness and unrighteousness." So this is one reason why I ascribe a moral connotation to "the righteousness of God." Secondly though, Paul describes the further and further falling into depravity that certain man came into in a step by step process. With each act of disobedience, God gave the sinners into a deeper level of sinfulness (which could also be referring to as hardening, which is discussed in Romans 9).
Now this is speculation on my part that I am not as confident in, but it may be possible that Paul was purposely just building up the wickedness and depravity of these people (they were probably Gentiles) further and further in order to get some of his Jewish audience to get into an emotional state of presumably righteous indignation against such disobedience. But then all of the sudden, Paul turns the tables in Chapter 2. All those people who were condemning such wickedness, Paul shows to be condemned because they do the exact same thing without repentance. Many of the readers were not better off than those people whom Paul had described and so, unless they repented, would have the same punishment brought upon them. Now Paul doesn't explicitly state that he is directed this towards Jews, because it is probably his purpose at least in part to apply this to everyone who might be such hypocrites, but no doubt Paul had the Jewish population particular, as we can see when we look at what Paul states later on in this chapter.
Paul explains that there will be a judgment of everyone's deeds and that there will be no partiality for the Jews in this judgment. Everyone who desires good will receive eternal life, whereas everyone who obeys unrighteousness will receive wrath (the same wrath as mentioned in Romans 1:18). However, not merely is the same standard applied to everyone, but it is applied to the Jews first and then the Greek (and all Gentiles). Salvation is for the Jews, and so they are first in line, so to speak, to receive the blessings. But likewise, because they have such a privileged position, they will also be the first to receive punishment for which they had done (I will develop the meaning of this concept further in the post on 9-11).
Moving further, the impartial judgment is described in terms of the Law (the Law of Moses to be specific). Everyone who has the Law will be condemned (that is, to be sentenced to death) by it if they disobey it, and everyone who do not have the Law will also be put to death even though they don't have the law. The conclusion that is to be drawn then is that it is the ones who have and follow the Law that are deemed as righteous (justified) by God. Justification/acceptance by God is not automatic by merely having knowledge of the Law (and therefore by implication, by being a Jew).
But there may be a question (though Paul doesn't explicitly state it) as to whether the judgment is really impartial because if the Gentiles perish without the Law, and the Jews perish with the Law, does that mean then that there are different standards, therefore there is some partiality? Paul states that some of the Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law and therefore have a law in themselves. In other word, the same basic things that are contained in the Law of Moses, the rest of the world has because, as Romans 1:20 says, God's qualities can be seen by the world (although, I would add, maybe not perfectly). The implication is that people have a conscience that can condemn or defend them when Jesus comes to judge.
At this point then, Paul asks those who are Jews that boast in God, have the Law, and feel they can instruct the blind if they do the same thing they teach. Many of them don't, and as a result they are part of the reason that the Gentiles blaspheme God. Now, Paul states that circumcision (which can stand for the whole Jewish system) is of no value itself if there is one does not in turn practice things of the Law. Therefore, the person who is true Jew in meaning and the one who is truly circumcised (circumcised in the heart) are those who keep the Law and so is inwardly a Jew and not only a Jew by name, since God's people were to be obedient. Paul concludes this chapter with two things: 1) that this circumcision was by the Spirit instead of by the letter of the Law (more specifically by the standards set forth in the Law of Moses in writing) and 2) that these people do not seek to be praised by men (or in other words, to be seen as good teachers as is implied by the context) but rather to be praised by God).
A couple of comments to add about Romans 2:13 before I conclude this post. First off, as is indicated by context, justification is referring to the character of the person. This has implications for the following usages of the word because it would be problematic to assign a fluid usage of the word where it means a declaration of character in one part, but soon after it means something significantly different. Secondly, there may seem to be a conflict between this verse and the teachings laid out in Romans 3-4. However, if one notes the context, the idea is doing what was intended by the Law, the very intent of the Law (or the spirit of the Law), whereas in Romans 3-4 it is referring to trying to be justified by a strict observance of the letter of the Law (as mentioned in 2:29). Certainly, Paul did not mean to say those that did not have the Law but did the things of it follow the strict, literal things prescribed in the Law of Moses, because how can we expect them to have such a detailed knowledge of something they never saw?
And so that concludes my synopsis on the first two chapters. I find that these two chapters set the stage for the following chapters (as one might expect), such as the way righteousness is revealed, the power in salvation (although those two are mentioned only briefly), justification, the problem of sin, issues regarding the Law, and the meaning of being a Jew. All these issues are thoroughly addressed by Paul in the following chapters. Therefore, in my future posts, I will probably reference heavily these two chapters just to give the context of the letter.
Friday, June 22, 2007
10 comments on Romans
Recently, I purchased Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul by Christ VanLandingham, based upon Chris Tilling's review of it here. I am slowly reading through it, so I am not completely through it, but this is the second book that I have personally read that has attempted to make understanding of judgment, grace, justification, and works in the Romans letter without the typical Protestant view (the other being Paul by N.T. Wright). I am not through VanL thesis yet, so I am not reviewing his book. Instead, reading those two books have sparked me to present my opinions as to the nature of Paul's theology in Romans. So here goes:
1) Justification is not to be understood primarily as an eschatological idea, but justification does have implications for the end times. Justification is how God views us and has implications for the present (such as peace with God in Romans 5:1) just as much as eternal life to be received(Romans 2:6-13).
2) Justification is not an acquittal. Nor is justification itself the process of making one righteous. Rather, justification is the view of one's character.
3) God's justification of men is not at ends with works. Paul never speaks of generic works as being at odds with justification (but only the "works of the Law"). Romans 4:4 is not speaking of the person who does not trust God, but rather it speaks of a man like Abraham who obeys God. The justification he receives can not be attributed to grace.
4) Grace describes God's character in the paradox of the new convert or the penitent backslider. Their deeds, as they stand, would lead them condemned, but yet they desire to live a new life of obedience. At that moment where their deeds do no allow for them to be seen as righteous, God graciously forgives past and account their trust in God as righteousness, and thus they can stand justified before God, who justifies the ungodly.
5) Grace also describes God's character in giving the ability to man to fulfill their desire of righteousness. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied" (Matthew 5:6). The "gift of righteousness" (Romans 5:17) is given to us on the account of Christ's sacrifice so that we can be obedient.
6) God's grace does not absolve a person of their responsibility of righteous deeds if they so have the opportunity. Grace gives man a new beginning, by forgiving the past so that one can stand in confidence before God and by providing a hope of obedience. God's grace covers the sins of those who sincerely repent of their wicked deeds and desire to obey. It is not a covering for a lack of works when one has the opportunity (unlike the sincere death-bed converts who do not have the opportunity).
7) Justification and forgiveness are related to the final judgment where God gives according to one's deeds. (Romans 2:5). Forgiveness is the forgiveness past actions so as to not be brought up against a person, either in the present or in the final judgment. Justification is God's judgment of the person's current character, whether before or during the final judgment. And a person remains justified so far as a person's character remains consistent. Therefore a person justified presently will be be found to "patiently doing good" and thus receive eternal life (Romans 2:7) if they continued to live life in such a manner till the end.
8) The phrase translated traditionally translated as "faith in Christ," should be translated as "the faith of Christ," describing the trust in God that Jesus had while on the earth. This faith is given as a example for believers to follow.
9) The "righteousness of God" describes the righteous character that God has. It does not refer to the quality of God's righteousness (i.e. perfection), but rather it refers to the type of righteousness, and thus is to be contrasted with the works of the Law.
10) God's righteousness it is displayed by the faith that Christ lived by while on earth. By Christ's faith, we have an example of how we are to live to achieve the type of righteousness that God has. By mimicking Christ's faith, we achieve the type of righteousness that God has. Thus, by that type faith, seeing that is produces righteousness, a person may be justified by that faith when they have had no opportunity for righteous action.
Hopefully, I got my ideas across sufficiently. I realize these points do not address all exegetical questions one might have, nor does it address the objections one might bring up to this view of Romans. My point though isn't to address everything or explain why I believe these things to be true, but rather to explain how I see Romans and maybe encourage a view of Romans that gets rid of the tension between grace and works.
(I confess the similarity to the "ten propositions" series at Faith and Theology, though I did it unwittingly and discovered the similarity after I had finished. By no means though am I as eloquent as Kim Fabricus though)
1) Justification is not to be understood primarily as an eschatological idea, but justification does have implications for the end times. Justification is how God views us and has implications for the present (such as peace with God in Romans 5:1) just as much as eternal life to be received(Romans 2:6-13).
2) Justification is not an acquittal. Nor is justification itself the process of making one righteous. Rather, justification is the view of one's character.
3) God's justification of men is not at ends with works. Paul never speaks of generic works as being at odds with justification (but only the "works of the Law"). Romans 4:4 is not speaking of the person who does not trust God, but rather it speaks of a man like Abraham who obeys God. The justification he receives can not be attributed to grace.
4) Grace describes God's character in the paradox of the new convert or the penitent backslider. Their deeds, as they stand, would lead them condemned, but yet they desire to live a new life of obedience. At that moment where their deeds do no allow for them to be seen as righteous, God graciously forgives past and account their trust in God as righteousness, and thus they can stand justified before God, who justifies the ungodly.
5) Grace also describes God's character in giving the ability to man to fulfill their desire of righteousness. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied" (Matthew 5:6). The "gift of righteousness" (Romans 5:17) is given to us on the account of Christ's sacrifice so that we can be obedient.
6) God's grace does not absolve a person of their responsibility of righteous deeds if they so have the opportunity. Grace gives man a new beginning, by forgiving the past so that one can stand in confidence before God and by providing a hope of obedience. God's grace covers the sins of those who sincerely repent of their wicked deeds and desire to obey. It is not a covering for a lack of works when one has the opportunity (unlike the sincere death-bed converts who do not have the opportunity).
7) Justification and forgiveness are related to the final judgment where God gives according to one's deeds. (Romans 2:5). Forgiveness is the forgiveness past actions so as to not be brought up against a person, either in the present or in the final judgment. Justification is God's judgment of the person's current character, whether before or during the final judgment. And a person remains justified so far as a person's character remains consistent. Therefore a person justified presently will be be found to "patiently doing good" and thus receive eternal life (Romans 2:7) if they continued to live life in such a manner till the end.
8) The phrase translated traditionally translated as "faith in Christ," should be translated as "the faith of Christ," describing the trust in God that Jesus had while on the earth. This faith is given as a example for believers to follow.
9) The "righteousness of God" describes the righteous character that God has. It does not refer to the quality of God's righteousness (i.e. perfection), but rather it refers to the type of righteousness, and thus is to be contrasted with the works of the Law.
10) God's righteousness it is displayed by the faith that Christ lived by while on earth. By Christ's faith, we have an example of how we are to live to achieve the type of righteousness that God has. By mimicking Christ's faith, we achieve the type of righteousness that God has. Thus, by that type faith, seeing that is produces righteousness, a person may be justified by that faith when they have had no opportunity for righteous action.
Hopefully, I got my ideas across sufficiently. I realize these points do not address all exegetical questions one might have, nor does it address the objections one might bring up to this view of Romans. My point though isn't to address everything or explain why I believe these things to be true, but rather to explain how I see Romans and maybe encourage a view of Romans that gets rid of the tension between grace and works.
(I confess the similarity to the "ten propositions" series at Faith and Theology, though I did it unwittingly and discovered the similarity after I had finished. By no means though am I as eloquent as Kim Fabricus though)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Justification and Romans 3:19-4:8
While the doctrine of justification was not an issue early on in the Church, receiving scant attention until the Protestant Reformation, it is a teaching that has great implications to the Christian religion. The major basis for the understanding of justification comes from the book of Romans, especially Romans 3 and 4.
Clement of Rome briefly talks about justification:
All this creates a tension between James and Paul, as Paul is the basis for justification by many theologians. James writes "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 - NASB) In addition Psalms 106:30-31 proclaims that Phinehas was credited with righteousness as a result of interposing for the plague that had come over Israel.
So what does Paul mean in Romans 3:19-4:8? Since it has been variously translated, exegesis becomes much more important. First though, let us not presuppose that Paul and James must be in exact agreement (they may be, but such an assumption forces the Bible not to contradict, instead of allowing it to be what it is). But in turn, let us have the assumption that they would likely have some beliefs in common since they were contemporaries and had contact with each other.
Before starting though, the translation I am giving is based upon the NET Bible (available at http://www.bible.org/index.php?scid=3), except where indicated. Within using the NET I have made modifications (keeping in mind the Greek) so as make it a bit more understandable to the average person (NET has a good ease of read) but likewise allowing for what I believe is a better way to get at the real meaning. Such changes which will be noted by bold text.
Also, a warning. This is fairly length, but I will not split off the post in order to not split up the thought process in reading it. If you want to read it through but don't have the attention span (like I don't often times), you may want to read a bit, take a break scan over what you just read then start from there (don't worry. It took me about 3 hours of stopping and going. If you can't read it all at once, its not a big deal).
The meaning of the word "justification" is a matter of debate. Augustine argues that it means that one is declared righteous but also to make righteous. However, Protestants have understood it to refer to the idea of a judge who acquits a person of wrong doing, making it essentially synonymous with forgiveness. It is argued that this is the way the word is used in Greek literature, and while it does carry this forensic sense, it is also used in other manners, such as to declare the ethical state of a person. Such is the clearly the use in some instances such as in Romans 2:13 (considering the context). It is also used in that manner in the Septuagint (LXX) in Exodus 23:7 which says in the LXX "You shall abstain from every unjust thing: you shall not slay the innocent and righteous, and you shall not justify the wicked for gifts." (compare with the Masoretic/traditional texts). So we are left with somewhat of an ambiguity with the word in Romans 3:20 and other places without considering context. However, one might say the usage in Romans 2:13 gives us a sense of how Paul uses it later on, but we should let context dictate that ultimately.
We also see the main idea that Paul teaches against in Romans 3:20 is justification by "works from the Law", or as it is more literally rendered "works of the Law." Many have taken "works of the Law" more loosely to refer to all works, but then this means Paul needlessly qualifies the types of works as being that of the Law. Instead, we should take it at its face value and that is the works that are derived from the Law.
We should also keep in mind that the Pharisees and other Jewish sects derived many precepts from the Law that were not explicitly mentioned in the Law. So whereas some might see Paul as essentially nullifying the commandments of the Law (which seems to be in contrast to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19), it is more probable in my mind that Paul is talking about the observance of behavioral codes that are from the Law, both explicitly in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) but also those that were derived from it. In that then, one can more easily align the idea of Romans 2:13 and 3:20 by saying the former is talking about the observance of the meaning of the Law, whereas 3:20 is more about the ritualistic observance in a specific manner. This will also fit in last verse of Romans 3 where Paul says they maintain the Law.
Traditionally, there is a sentence break between the end of verse 20 ("...for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - NASB) and the beginning of verse 21 ("But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested..." - NASB). This leads some to conclude that the ending of verse 20 is the explanation of why the works of the Law do not justify anyone. However, this is probably not the correct understanding of the text because if the sole fact that the Law brings about knowledge of sin, it is a huge leap in logic from that to conclude that justification can not come from the Law. However, if one includes verse 21 (and what follows) as part of the logical argument by Paul against justification by the works of the Law, then it is much easier to see how that conclusion is drawn. If that is the case, then Paul states that justification (being judged as righteous) is not by works of the Law because its role was to show sin, but instead righteousness is to be attained through a different manner. The righteousness of God is the means to justification, and not the works of the Law.
This leads us then to consider what the meaning of the "righteousness of God" is. If one were to draw a conclusion just from Romans 3:19-21, one would say then by nature of the contrast between works of the Law and righteousness of God that the "righteousness of God" refers to the code of conduct one is to follow that comes from God. However, some might say it is not referring to an ethical code, but rather the righteousness that God credits to our account (as some might say, "Christ's righteousness imputed to us"). In Romans 1:17 though, the "righteousness of God" is contrasted with the "unrighteousness of men" in Romans 1:18. Considering that "of God" and "of men" are both genitives in the Greek, it would follow that one understands them in a similar way. Therefore, if "unrighteousness of men" refers to the evil behavior that men have, the "righteousness of God" refers to the holy behavior that God has, thus giving it an ethical meaning. Furthermore, the phrase is also used by James where he says that the "anger of men does not achieve the righteousness of God" (James 1:20 - NASB), where the phrase is clearly used regarding ethical considerations.
Considering all this then, Paul's argumentation is that justification is not by works of the Law because justification is obtained through the ethical code that God follows, or being like God in behavior. This brings to mind the saying "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 9:2 - NASB) and also the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:48 which are "Therefore you are to be perfect exactly like your heavenly father is perfect" (My rendition). All this also implies that justification is more of the declaration of an ethical status instead of acquittal of past sins.
First, is pistis to be translated as faith or faithfulness here? It is to be understood as faith because Paul goes on to establish that justification is not by the law in Romans 4 by the fact that Abraham believed (similar word in the Greek, only in verb form) God and that belief was credited to righteousness. Faithfulness, while it might be implied by the concept faith, is not the idea that Paul is talking about in Romans 3-5 when he uses the word pistis.
Secondly, should we render the phrase as an objective or subjective genitive? Consider in Romans 4:12 the similar construction of faith + a genitive is taken as a subjective genitive when it says "the faith of our father." One would not think to say that faith was placed in Abraham, but rather that they mimicked the faith of the father Abraham. Taken the genitive consistently in that construction, one would translate it as the "faith of Christ." In addition, the genitive is used in a similar way with the "works of/from the Law" and the "righteousness of/from God." Furthermore, if it is translated as "faith in Christ" then Paul becomes rather redundant in Romans 3:21 and Galatians 2:16 where there is a clear instance of referring to the faith that people are to have, therefore it seems more reasonable to take it as referring to the faith that Jesus Christ had.
So what do we make of the phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ?" What does it have to do with us? Paul uses it to refer to the example of faith that we are to follow. Paul exhorts the Philippians to have the same "attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:5 - NASB). Furthermore, the Apostle Peter shows Jesus as an example in 1 Peter 2:21-25 while specifically referencing the trust that Christ had in God (1 Peter 2:23). So it is not a far cry to say that "the faith of Jesus Christ" refers to the faith that Christ had in God that we also are to have. This is not foreign to Paul at all, as Paul clearly calls for us to mimick the faith of Abraham in Romans 4. Just as we are to be "of the faith of Abraham" (Romans 4:16), we are to be of the faith of Jesus Christ.
This interpretation also explains Romans 1:17 which says "the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith" (NET). By the faith of some, such as Christ (and Abraham) the righteousness of God is shown to others who have faith. Christ in His humanity came to earth and displayed by His faith the way God is perfectly, because He is the image of God Himself. Thus, it is by Jesus Christ's faith that the way of righteousness is revealed to us.
In Leviticus 16:15 it is said that the mercy seat is the place where the blood of the sacrifices was to be sprinkled. However, there is something more significant I believe about the mercy seat. In Leviticus 16:2, it is said that the presence of God will appear over the mercy seat in a cloud. Furthermore, in Exodus 40:34-35 and 1 Kings 8:10-12, the cloud is referred to as the glory of the Lord. So one would said the glory of God was where the mercy seat was.
Now lets apply this back to the text here. If this is indeed the idea that Paul is alluding to, then he is describing Jesus as the place where atonement is made, and also where God's glory is. John describes Jesus (the Word) as the glory of God in John 1:14. Hebrews 1:3 also says that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory. As for the definition of glory, it may be describes as the visible power and/or presence of God.
So it follows if Jesus is the glory of God, then He is fit to reveal the righteousness that God has. He perfectly reveals God's righteous nature that we are to live by. Thus, Paul uses the mercy seat to allude to Jesus being the glory of God.
It goes on further to say that God disregards (or as some translations render it, "passed over") the sins that had been committed. Now the word there for disregards (paresis) does not indicate forgiveness, but rather it indicates a temporary overlooking on the part of God. What is the significance of this? Recall back to the mercy seat that no one, except Aaron, was to enter into the holy of holies, where the mercy seat was located. And he could only enter with a sacrifice of a bull, as stated in Leviticus 16:3. To do otherwise would mean death for him because God's presence was there. So if Jesus Christ is the glory of God, then it would follow to be in His presence would mean to suffer death. But yet, God overlooks the sins of people in order to allow Christ to demonstrate God's righteousness. If Christ could not appear before people without them dying, they could not see the very nature of God that we are to emulate.
As a side note, this would probably explain the meaning of "fall short of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23. It refers to the fact that none can come into the presence of God because of their sin, just as is implied by Leviticus 16:2-3. Because of our sins, we naturally would not be able to come into God's glory, but we would fall short and only be allowed outside the holy of holies.
Also note that God is said publicly displayed Jesus through faith. The context seems to fit the idea that Jesus was publicly displayed as a mercy seat through faith. In other words, by the faith of Jesus, Christ's faith in God was the means by which He demonstrated all the righteousness of God, but also by Christ's faith He was obedient to the cross so that He would be the place where atonement is made.
Notice the phrase "Of the works?" Most translations render this as "Of works?," but there is an article there in the Greek. I think it has specific importance because by including it, Paul is not talking about any works, but of THE works. The article in Greek is often times anaphoric (which means to refer back), so it is probably that Paul is speaking of the works that he had been talking about in this section, the works of the Law. Thus we need not conclude that it means works generically (though it possibly could still from a grammatical standpoint).
Notice that the objection does not say "by works of the law" (the NET Bible adds it, but it is absent from the Greek). Rather, this is plain justification by works. And then Paul gives his response. He doesn't say "he wasn't justified by works", but instead he responds that Abraham could not boast before God. Paul could have easily destroyed this objection by stating and proving that general works had nothing to do with justification. And yet, Paul doesn't, but instead simply claims there can be no boast before God. This sets up follows from Paul's pen.
It has often times be assumed by many that "the one who works" refers to the person who lacks all faith and is essentially unsaved. But this does not fit into the design of the apostle. The objection was regarding Abraham and the idea that if he is justified by works, he could boast. It is more natural, then, that "the one who works" refers to a person who is obedient to God, just as Abraham was. This does not involve a drastic shift in thought, but allows Paul to answer the question about what Abraham had found. Also, we must allow the possibility that Paul brings up the idea of a person who works in a metaphorical manner and not to be taken strictly literal.
So if this refers to obedient people like Abraham, what does it mean. If Abraham was justified by works, the reason God declares him as righteous is because that is what is due to him. Abraham indeed had all the works necessary to demonstrate oneself as a righteous man.
Paul does not stop there though because if that is all there is to it, then Abraham could have boasted before all, including God. Instead though, Paul gives the opposite; the one who does not work. Who could this be describing? If the one who works describes the person who is obedient as Abraham was, then the one who does not work probably refers to those who have not been obedient to God. It is said that this person is ungodly, and yet the man is justified before God.
In my opinion, this refers to person who was condemned in their sinful lifestyle. They had just repented of their sins before God, but they have had no opportunity to do works of righteousness. They had no works to their credit before God. But yet, God declares them as righteous on the basis of their faith. God sees the trust the person has in God as revealing of righteousness, even though the person had no opportunity to do righteous works. In other words, the man is in good standing before God and it is due to God's grace to accept the person's faith as righteous. Because of this fact, if a man is justified before God, God was gracious to him to declare him as righteous before the man even had the works to demonstrate that. Thus, God is the one who brings a man to righteousness, He initially is the source, not man, and therefore no man can boast.
This brings to remembrance the idea of the tax collector who went home justified before God after his repentant heart, whereas the Pharisee who followed the works of the Law did not (Luke 18:10-14).
1) God speaks of the person who God does not credit sin. If righteousness and sin are contrast, one could conclude that a man that God does not credit sin to, He credits righteousness to.
2) Secondly, as the end of the Psalm in 32:11, it is said that the man who is righteous should rejoice and the upright in heart should shout for joy. Thus, this final verse implies the righteous state of David after his repentance for his sin, even though he had no works.
So in quoting Psalms 32:1-2, Paul proves that justification can be obtained without works. He did not prove it by referring to the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 because it could not be established that this was at a time where Abraham lacked works. It only showed that a man could obtain justification on the account of faith. Therefore, Paul must go further to prove his point that a man who has no works can be justified before God and therefore can not boast before God.
So in summary: Paul establishes that a man can by justified by emulating the faith that Christ has. He disproves that works of the Law (of Moses) justifies a person, but never states that works in general never justify. He instead says that a man can be justified before God on the account of something that is not a work, that is, on account of faith. It is not said that faith itself is the means by which that if a person have he must be justified, but only that if a man is to be justified, he can and will be justified by faith, and a faith that emulates the faith of Christ and Abraham.
I apologize for the length, but I felt it necessary.
Clement of Rome briefly talks about justification:
"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever." - First Epistle to the Corinthians (approximately 97 A.D) by Clement of Rome, Chapter XXXIIBut yet only a couple chapters earlier Clement speaks of justification by works.
"Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." - First Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome, Chapter XXXIt seems, according to some, that Clement contradicts himself here. This just demonstrates that the understanding of justification is not simplistic. Other early church fathers also seem to indicate that justificaton is from a combination of faith and works. Later theologians, such as Martin Luther, conclude justification was based solely upon faith in Christ (but the faith that saves is one that works). More recently, many assert justification is based upon a faith that may or may not also be accompanied by works.
All this creates a tension between James and Paul, as Paul is the basis for justification by many theologians. James writes "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 - NASB) In addition Psalms 106:30-31 proclaims that Phinehas was credited with righteousness as a result of interposing for the plague that had come over Israel.
So what does Paul mean in Romans 3:19-4:8? Since it has been variously translated, exegesis becomes much more important. First though, let us not presuppose that Paul and James must be in exact agreement (they may be, but such an assumption forces the Bible not to contradict, instead of allowing it to be what it is). But in turn, let us have the assumption that they would likely have some beliefs in common since they were contemporaries and had contact with each other.
Before starting though, the translation I am giving is based upon the NET Bible (available at http://www.bible.org/index.php?scid=3), except where indicated. Within using the NET I have made modifications (keeping in mind the Greek) so as make it a bit more understandable to the average person (NET has a good ease of read) but likewise allowing for what I believe is a better way to get at the real meaning. Such changes which will be noted by bold text.
Also, a warning. This is fairly length, but I will not split off the post in order to not split up the thought process in reading it. If you want to read it through but don't have the attention span (like I don't often times), you may want to read a bit, take a break scan over what you just read then start from there (don't worry. It took me about 3 hours of stopping and going. If you can't read it all at once, its not a big deal).
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no one is judged as righteous before him by the works of the law. That is because through the law comes the knowledge of sin, but now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been shown" -- Rom 3:19-21 (NET with changes in bold)"Judged as righteous" (dikaiow) is traditionally translated as "justification." However, I changed it so as to be less ambiguous to the casual reader and be more easily able to relate it to "righteousness" (dikaiosunh), which is a term that used by Paul also in these verses. I also did not keep with the NET translation of "declared righteous" as I think that is a bit ambiguous as to what I believe the meaning is.
The meaning of the word "justification" is a matter of debate. Augustine argues that it means that one is declared righteous but also to make righteous. However, Protestants have understood it to refer to the idea of a judge who acquits a person of wrong doing, making it essentially synonymous with forgiveness. It is argued that this is the way the word is used in Greek literature, and while it does carry this forensic sense, it is also used in other manners, such as to declare the ethical state of a person. Such is the clearly the use in some instances such as in Romans 2:13 (considering the context). It is also used in that manner in the Septuagint (LXX) in Exodus 23:7 which says in the LXX "You shall abstain from every unjust thing: you shall not slay the innocent and righteous, and you shall not justify the wicked for gifts." (compare with the Masoretic/traditional texts). So we are left with somewhat of an ambiguity with the word in Romans 3:20 and other places without considering context. However, one might say the usage in Romans 2:13 gives us a sense of how Paul uses it later on, but we should let context dictate that ultimately.
We also see the main idea that Paul teaches against in Romans 3:20 is justification by "works from the Law", or as it is more literally rendered "works of the Law." Many have taken "works of the Law" more loosely to refer to all works, but then this means Paul needlessly qualifies the types of works as being that of the Law. Instead, we should take it at its face value and that is the works that are derived from the Law.
We should also keep in mind that the Pharisees and other Jewish sects derived many precepts from the Law that were not explicitly mentioned in the Law. So whereas some might see Paul as essentially nullifying the commandments of the Law (which seems to be in contrast to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19), it is more probable in my mind that Paul is talking about the observance of behavioral codes that are from the Law, both explicitly in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) but also those that were derived from it. In that then, one can more easily align the idea of Romans 2:13 and 3:20 by saying the former is talking about the observance of the meaning of the Law, whereas 3:20 is more about the ritualistic observance in a specific manner. This will also fit in last verse of Romans 3 where Paul says they maintain the Law.
Traditionally, there is a sentence break between the end of verse 20 ("...for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." - NASB) and the beginning of verse 21 ("But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested..." - NASB). This leads some to conclude that the ending of verse 20 is the explanation of why the works of the Law do not justify anyone. However, this is probably not the correct understanding of the text because if the sole fact that the Law brings about knowledge of sin, it is a huge leap in logic from that to conclude that justification can not come from the Law. However, if one includes verse 21 (and what follows) as part of the logical argument by Paul against justification by the works of the Law, then it is much easier to see how that conclusion is drawn. If that is the case, then Paul states that justification (being judged as righteous) is not by works of the Law because its role was to show sin, but instead righteousness is to be attained through a different manner. The righteousness of God is the means to justification, and not the works of the Law.
This leads us then to consider what the meaning of the "righteousness of God" is. If one were to draw a conclusion just from Romans 3:19-21, one would say then by nature of the contrast between works of the Law and righteousness of God that the "righteousness of God" refers to the code of conduct one is to follow that comes from God. However, some might say it is not referring to an ethical code, but rather the righteousness that God credits to our account (as some might say, "Christ's righteousness imputed to us"). In Romans 1:17 though, the "righteousness of God" is contrasted with the "unrighteousness of men" in Romans 1:18. Considering that "of God" and "of men" are both genitives in the Greek, it would follow that one understands them in a similar way. Therefore, if "unrighteousness of men" refers to the evil behavior that men have, the "righteousness of God" refers to the holy behavior that God has, thus giving it an ethical meaning. Furthermore, the phrase is also used by James where he says that the "anger of men does not achieve the righteousness of God" (James 1:20 - NASB), where the phrase is clearly used regarding ethical considerations.
Considering all this then, Paul's argumentation is that justification is not by works of the Law because justification is obtained through the ethical code that God follows, or being like God in behavior. This brings to mind the saying "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 9:2 - NASB) and also the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:48 which are "Therefore you are to be perfect exactly like your heavenly father is perfect" (My rendition). All this also implies that justification is more of the declaration of an ethical status instead of acquittal of past sins.
the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been shown, namely, the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe (for there is no distinction because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), being freely judged as righteous by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, - Rom 3:21b-24 (NET with changes in bold)The phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ" has been a phrase that has recently been under much debate regarding to how one should render the Greek. Traditionally, this was translated as "faith in Christ," talking about ones own belief regarding Christ (and taking it as the type of belief that John frequently refers to, such as in John 3:16). In addition, there are others who would render it as "the faithfulness of Christ" (such as how the NET Bible itself does). The correct translation is debated because of two factors. First, the Greek word pistis can be understood as referring to faith, the cognitive aspect of a person, or faithfulness, which is talking about the behavioral aspects. Further more, "Jesus Christ" is in the genitive, which in certain instances, such as here, can be understood as an objective genitive ("faith in Christ") or as a subjective genitive ("faith/faithfulness of Christ").
First, is pistis to be translated as faith or faithfulness here? It is to be understood as faith because Paul goes on to establish that justification is not by the law in Romans 4 by the fact that Abraham believed (similar word in the Greek, only in verb form) God and that belief was credited to righteousness. Faithfulness, while it might be implied by the concept faith, is not the idea that Paul is talking about in Romans 3-5 when he uses the word pistis.
Secondly, should we render the phrase as an objective or subjective genitive? Consider in Romans 4:12 the similar construction of faith + a genitive is taken as a subjective genitive when it says "the faith of our father." One would not think to say that faith was placed in Abraham, but rather that they mimicked the faith of the father Abraham. Taken the genitive consistently in that construction, one would translate it as the "faith of Christ." In addition, the genitive is used in a similar way with the "works of/from the Law" and the "righteousness of/from God." Furthermore, if it is translated as "faith in Christ" then Paul becomes rather redundant in Romans 3:21 and Galatians 2:16 where there is a clear instance of referring to the faith that people are to have, therefore it seems more reasonable to take it as referring to the faith that Jesus Christ had.
So what do we make of the phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ?" What does it have to do with us? Paul uses it to refer to the example of faith that we are to follow. Paul exhorts the Philippians to have the same "attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:5 - NASB). Furthermore, the Apostle Peter shows Jesus as an example in 1 Peter 2:21-25 while specifically referencing the trust that Christ had in God (1 Peter 2:23). So it is not a far cry to say that "the faith of Jesus Christ" refers to the faith that Christ had in God that we also are to have. This is not foreign to Paul at all, as Paul clearly calls for us to mimick the faith of Abraham in Romans 4. Just as we are to be "of the faith of Abraham" (Romans 4:16), we are to be of the faith of Jesus Christ.
This interpretation also explains Romans 1:17 which says "the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith" (NET). By the faith of some, such as Christ (and Abraham) the righteousness of God is shown to others who have faith. Christ in His humanity came to earth and displayed by His faith the way God is perfectly, because He is the image of God Himself. Thus, it is by Jesus Christ's faith that the way of righteousness is revealed to us.
[Jesus Christ is] "whom God displayed publicly through faith as a mercy seat by His blood in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because by God's forbearance He disregarded the previously committed sins for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and the one who judges those who have the faith of Jesus as righteous" - Rom 3:25-26 (My own rendition)This is a verse that I think has been totally missed by most translations. Most translations render "mercy seat" (hilasthrion) as "propitation," which gives the connotation of a sacrifice. However, I believe "mercy seat" is a better translation, in which case it refers to the place that atonement is made. If this is the case, then this an allusion to the mercy seat in the Old Testament. So lets establish the significance of the mercy seat.
In Leviticus 16:15 it is said that the mercy seat is the place where the blood of the sacrifices was to be sprinkled. However, there is something more significant I believe about the mercy seat. In Leviticus 16:2, it is said that the presence of God will appear over the mercy seat in a cloud. Furthermore, in Exodus 40:34-35 and 1 Kings 8:10-12, the cloud is referred to as the glory of the Lord. So one would said the glory of God was where the mercy seat was.
Now lets apply this back to the text here. If this is indeed the idea that Paul is alluding to, then he is describing Jesus as the place where atonement is made, and also where God's glory is. John describes Jesus (the Word) as the glory of God in John 1:14. Hebrews 1:3 also says that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory. As for the definition of glory, it may be describes as the visible power and/or presence of God.
So it follows if Jesus is the glory of God, then He is fit to reveal the righteousness that God has. He perfectly reveals God's righteous nature that we are to live by. Thus, Paul uses the mercy seat to allude to Jesus being the glory of God.
It goes on further to say that God disregards (or as some translations render it, "passed over") the sins that had been committed. Now the word there for disregards (paresis) does not indicate forgiveness, but rather it indicates a temporary overlooking on the part of God. What is the significance of this? Recall back to the mercy seat that no one, except Aaron, was to enter into the holy of holies, where the mercy seat was located. And he could only enter with a sacrifice of a bull, as stated in Leviticus 16:3. To do otherwise would mean death for him because God's presence was there. So if Jesus Christ is the glory of God, then it would follow to be in His presence would mean to suffer death. But yet, God overlooks the sins of people in order to allow Christ to demonstrate God's righteousness. If Christ could not appear before people without them dying, they could not see the very nature of God that we are to emulate.
As a side note, this would probably explain the meaning of "fall short of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23. It refers to the fact that none can come into the presence of God because of their sin, just as is implied by Leviticus 16:2-3. Because of our sins, we naturally would not be able to come into God's glory, but we would fall short and only be allowed outside the holy of holies.
Also note that God is said publicly displayed Jesus through faith. The context seems to fit the idea that Jesus was publicly displayed as a mercy seat through faith. In other words, by the faith of Jesus, Christ's faith in God was the means by which He demonstrated all the righteousness of God, but also by Christ's faith He was obedient to the cross so that He would be the place where atonement is made.
"Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of the works? No, but by the principle of faith! For we consider that a person is judged as righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law." - Rom 3:27-31 (NET with changes in bold)I do not have too much to say regarding this, as it seems to my fairly self explanatory. However, I will make one remark.
Notice the phrase "Of the works?" Most translations render this as "Of works?," but there is an article there in the Greek. I think it has specific importance because by including it, Paul is not talking about any works, but of THE works. The article in Greek is often times anaphoric (which means to refer back), so it is probably that Paul is speaking of the works that he had been talking about in this section, the works of the Law. Thus we need not conclude that it means works generically (though it possibly could still from a grammatical standpoint).
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered has found? For if Abraham was judged as righteous by the works ||, he has something to boast about -- but not before God." - Rom 4:1-2 (NET with changes in bold and deletion indicated by ||)In these verses we have the hypothetical objection someone might bring in response to Paul. It is of especial importance that one notes that this is a response to the fact that boasting is excluded, which we can see from the final statement of the object "he has something to boast about." The claim is that Abraham has been seen as righteous/obedient before God throughout the Old Testament and it was by works (see for instance the sacrifice of Isaac, as James discusses in James 2:21. See specifically Genesis 22:12 and 16-18), which was evidenced by the covenants God made with Abraham. The idea is then, if one can obtain justification by works, then we have something to boast about.
Notice that the objection does not say "by works of the law" (the NET Bible adds it, but it is absent from the Greek). Rather, this is plain justification by works. And then Paul gives his response. He doesn't say "he wasn't justified by works", but instead he responds that Abraham could not boast before God. Paul could have easily destroyed this objection by stating and proving that general works had nothing to do with justification. And yet, Paul doesn't, but instead simply claims there can be no boast before God. This sets up follows from Paul's pen.
For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who judges the ungodly as righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness, - Rom 4:3-5 (NET with changes in bold)Here the word "For" (gar) indicates Paul's rationale that Abraham could not boast before God. He quotes from Genesis 15:6 in order to demonstrate how Abraham could not boast. In the verse, it is demonstrated that God declared Abraham as righteous on the basis of his faith. If a trust in the promise that God made (which is the type belief that Abraham is said to have) justified someone, then there must be a time that works were not necessary for justification (not that I did not say "never necessary"). This point, Paul establishes in the following verses.
It has often times be assumed by many that "the one who works" refers to the person who lacks all faith and is essentially unsaved. But this does not fit into the design of the apostle. The objection was regarding Abraham and the idea that if he is justified by works, he could boast. It is more natural, then, that "the one who works" refers to a person who is obedient to God, just as Abraham was. This does not involve a drastic shift in thought, but allows Paul to answer the question about what Abraham had found. Also, we must allow the possibility that Paul brings up the idea of a person who works in a metaphorical manner and not to be taken strictly literal.
So if this refers to obedient people like Abraham, what does it mean. If Abraham was justified by works, the reason God declares him as righteous is because that is what is due to him. Abraham indeed had all the works necessary to demonstrate oneself as a righteous man.
Paul does not stop there though because if that is all there is to it, then Abraham could have boasted before all, including God. Instead though, Paul gives the opposite; the one who does not work. Who could this be describing? If the one who works describes the person who is obedient as Abraham was, then the one who does not work probably refers to those who have not been obedient to God. It is said that this person is ungodly, and yet the man is justified before God.
In my opinion, this refers to person who was condemned in their sinful lifestyle. They had just repented of their sins before God, but they have had no opportunity to do works of righteousness. They had no works to their credit before God. But yet, God declares them as righteous on the basis of their faith. God sees the trust the person has in God as revealing of righteousness, even though the person had no opportunity to do righteous works. In other words, the man is in good standing before God and it is due to God's grace to accept the person's faith as righteous. Because of this fact, if a man is justified before God, God was gracious to him to declare him as righteous before the man even had the works to demonstrate that. Thus, God is the one who brings a man to righteousness, He initially is the source, not man, and therefore no man can boast.
This brings to remembrance the idea of the tax collector who went home justified before God after his repentant heart, whereas the Pharisee who followed the works of the Law did not (Luke 18:10-14).
his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David himself also speaks regarding the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not credit sin." -Rom 4:5b-8 (NET with changes in bold)In verses 6-8, Paul endeavors to vindicate the teaching that a man may be justified by God before he has any works. He quotes Psalm 32:1-2, which is a Psalm written by David. In that Psalm, if one reads it through, it is a psalm of a penitent who had fallen into some sin and was under the wrath of God with no forgiveness from Him. But yet after he confessed his sins, God forgave him of his guilt (Psalm 32:5). Such a man who was in a state of disobedience that God would not forgive him his sins is a man whose works are not such that he can be seen as righteous by God. It is in that way then that Paul can state that Psalms 32 backs up the idea that righteousness can be accredited apart from works (and therefore according to faith). And it is implied that God credits righteousness because:
1) God speaks of the person who God does not credit sin. If righteousness and sin are contrast, one could conclude that a man that God does not credit sin to, He credits righteousness to.
2) Secondly, as the end of the Psalm in 32:11, it is said that the man who is righteous should rejoice and the upright in heart should shout for joy. Thus, this final verse implies the righteous state of David after his repentance for his sin, even though he had no works.
So in quoting Psalms 32:1-2, Paul proves that justification can be obtained without works. He did not prove it by referring to the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 because it could not be established that this was at a time where Abraham lacked works. It only showed that a man could obtain justification on the account of faith. Therefore, Paul must go further to prove his point that a man who has no works can be justified before God and therefore can not boast before God.
So in summary: Paul establishes that a man can by justified by emulating the faith that Christ has. He disproves that works of the Law (of Moses) justifies a person, but never states that works in general never justify. He instead says that a man can be justified before God on the account of something that is not a work, that is, on account of faith. It is not said that faith itself is the means by which that if a person have he must be justified, but only that if a man is to be justified, he can and will be justified by faith, and a faith that emulates the faith of Christ and Abraham.
I apologize for the length, but I felt it necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)