Romans 4:4-5 - A Challenge to Traditional View

[Drew]

In this series of posts, I will argue against a widely held interpretation of Romans 4:4-5, namely the view that this text rules out the possibility that we are justified by "good works". I intend to argue that the "man who works" in the following text is in fact a metaphor, and if we take it otherwise, we reach a conclusion that the context simply cannot support. In short, I will argue that Paul is not here saying that we will not be justified by the "works" we exhibit in our lives.

Here is Romans 4:4-5 in the NIV:

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Just so you know the general direction that I am going, I will claim that Romans 1 to 4 generally, and 3:20-4:25 specifically, is basically an argument by Paul that in sending Jesus to the cross, God has remained faithful to, and actually fulfilled His covenant with Abraham, as initiated in Genesis 15, and whose fundamental purpose was to solve the Adamic problem - sin. In other words, the theme of how God has been faithful to His covenant is central here.

Starting with Romans 3:20

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin

I will assert, without immediate argument, that "law" here is really Torah. And I will move to another point: Paul is not, repeat not, closing the door on the possibility that we will indeed be justified by the "good works" that we exhibit in our lives (as Romans 2:7 and 2:13 clearly teach). Rather, he is saying something along the lines of "there is a way of obeying Torah that will not justify you" - he is saying that one cannot be be declared righteous by observing the Torah in a specific way.

In defence to those who will claim that I am reading this distinction into the text in my implication that there is indeed a way of observing Torah that will indeed justify a person, I cite Paul's own statement about Israel in Romans 9:30-32:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works

Here, Paul himself clearly draws this distinction - there are two ways of fulfilling Torah. One is "by faith" and the other is "by works". Even if Paul were not so clear about this duality, I could point to Paul's "dual-edged" view of the Law as a kind of precedent for such dual meanings. Paul sees Torah both as God's perfect and holy Law and also as having the "dark" side of magnifying and actually intensifying the sin of Israel.

So returning to verse 20, I think the objective reader needs to at least allow a strong plausibility case that Paul is not saying that Torah cannot justify us here, but rather a certain way of doing Torah cannot justify us. I personally think that Romans 9:30-32, combined with such things as Paul's following statement from Phillipians 3 supports this view:

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christâ€â€the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Paul then immediately goes to on to write this:

12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

This sounds very much like a position that is entirely coherent with a future justification by works, just as is expressed in Romans 2:7. So at the very least, the entire Phillipians texts denies that "legalistic" Torah keeping will justify and it is at least consistent with the assertion that there is a second way of keeping Torah that will, at the end of one's life, qualify one to be justified.

Now a technical point here. If you are going to try to argue that this text proves that we cannot be justified by the works we exhibit in our lives (even if done by the Spirit working in us) because "faith in Christ" is the stated key to justification, you are bringing certain assumptions to this text, assumptions that are bound up in the very matter at issue. I would humbly suggest that "a righteousness that comes from God and is by faith" is not conceptually inconsistent with future justification by works. The reason: it is entirely coherent that it is precisely this faith that enables the Spirit to do "works" in us that will cause us, on the day of judgement, to be vindicated / justified under Romans 2:7

to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for (B)glory and honor and (C)immortality, (God will give) eternal life

Another point: even though the the Phillipians text does not explicitly identify a second way of keeping Torah that includes "justification by works" at the end of life, I will assert that texts like the first part of Romans 8 and stuff early in Romans 10 "fill in the blanks" as it were. I may fill that out in a later post.

In the next post, I will continue the argument, focussing on Romans 3:21-31 as establishing a context that makes the "traditional" reading of Romans 4:4-5 questionable.

 

[Drew]

In this second post, I will continue the argument, here focusing on the content of Romans 3:21-31 and laying the ground to show how context forces us to conclude that in Romans 4:4-5, Paul is not denying that people will be justified in accordance with the works they exhibit in their lives.

Now with respect to the block Romans 3:21-31, the traditional reading of this is essentially that "all humans are sinners and that we can be justified by faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus". This view usually is expressed with no specific reference to Israel and to the existence of the Abrahamic covnenant.

In verse 21, Paul refers, at least in the NIV translation to a "righteousness from God":

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify

Quite naturally, such a translation leads us to think that Paul is talking about our status - a righteousness that is ascribed or imputed to us. However, the NASB translates this as "righteousness of God" which is more suggestive that the text is refer to God's own righteousness - and specifically the righteousness that He exhibits by acting in fidelity to His covenant.

I will assert, again without argument for the sake of brevity (I can actually defend my assertion), that the original Greek lets one interpret this either way - so we really need to use context to determine whether Paul is talking about a righteousness that we get or whether it is God's own righteousness - His fidelity with the covenant that is in view here. I submit that it is the latter and that resolving the ambiguity in this direction makes 3:20-4:25 far more coherent. For the moment, I can only ask the reader to be open to the possibility that Paul is referring to God's covenant faithfulness , and not to an imputed righteousness that we get, and see how well this coheres with what Paul then goes on to say.

I am claiming that in 3:21-26, Paul essentially argues that in the present time, "now" as it were, God's own covenant faithfulness has been revealed. How has it been revealed? It has been revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, acting in fidelity with the covenant and playing a role in fulfilling the covenant that faithless Israel had failed to do. Such a view stands in contrast to what I think the traditional reading has been - that in these verses we read of how God has imputed righteousness to us through the atoning act of Jesus on the cross. And, of course, while this set of verses can be read in such a way, they can also be read in the way that I am suggesting.

And as yet another example of translation decisions that can obscure the intent of Paul we need to consider verses 22 and 23:

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

I make the same argument about the phrase "this righteousness from God", namely that it can be translated as the "this righteousnes of God" (and, in fact, the NASB does translate it as "of God" not "from God"). And, the original Greek phrase that has been here interpreted (in the NIV) as "through faith in Jesus Christ" can also be interpreted as "through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ". I am sure the reader will see how this alternate translation can change the entire tenor of 3:21-26 and that this can ripple right through to chapter 4.

I, of course, am arguing for the view that this entire set of verses is about how God, through Christ, acting in fidelity with His covenant with Abraham. And I assert that such a reading is entirely true to this isolated chunk of text, even though the "traditional" reading is also "locally" consistent in this way.

I will,in the next post, continue to address 3:21-31 and try to argue that overall context suggests that, in these verses, Paul is dealing with how God has been faithful to His covenant with Israel. I will ultimately get to chapter 4 and the controversial text about the "man who works" and the issue of "justification by works".

 

[Robert Cragg]

What these verses refers to in 4 is works as a way to get salvation, some Denomanations believe good works is how you get to heaven.
In 5 Pauls is saying good works does not buy your way to salvation, you can only get salvation through Jesus and that is a free gift.

 

[Drew]

What these verses refers to in 4 is works as a way to get salvation, some Denomanations believe good works is how you get to heaven.
In 5 Pauls is saying good works does not buy your way to salvation, you can only get salvation through Jesus and that is a free gift.

I do not agree and the whole purpose of this thread is to present an argument that in Romans 4, at least in the first few verses anyway, Paul is not even talking about "good works" as a way to "get to heaven". I trust that you will accept the good-natured intent when I say that one cannot merely assert what one thinks Romans 4:4-5 is about, one has to make a case for it, and not least find errors in competing arguments. So I invite you and others to point out logical or exegetical errors in the argument that I am presenting.

Just to give you a hint of where I am going: I am going to try to argue the position of Richard Hays who says that, in Romans 4:1, the following question:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

is really the following question:

"What then shall we say, have we found Abraham to be our father according to the flesh?

In other words, I believe that Paul is asking the following question: "Since we (Jew and Gentile) are all one family now, does this mean that all of us - Gentiles included - are to consider ourselves to be incorporated into "ethnic Israel"?

To the extent that this is a plausible interpretation of what is admittedly a vague question as rendered in the NIV and other translations, we can see that Paul is not talking about "justification by good works in Romans 4:4-5, but is instead talking about the criteria that place one inside God's covenant family, specifically in respect to the Jewish - Gentile distinction. And he answers the question in Romans 4:16

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all

In other words, the answer is "no" - the Gentiles are not part of ethnic Israel and Paul is essentially defining the "true" covenant family in terms of one thing and one thing only - faith.

 

[mondar]

Drew. it is very noticeable that when you work with Romans 4:4-5, you hardly bother to mention the text. You are saying what it means without only one or two references to the context, and no references to the vocabulary of the two verses.

Also, your comments about the context are not accurate. You mention...

...we can see that Paul is not talking about "justification by good works in Romans 4:4-5, but is instead talking about the criteria that place one inside God's covenant family, specifically in respect to the Jewish - Gentile distinction. And he answers the question in Romans 4:16

To suggest this is to bring something in not in the context. Paul does mention Abraham, but is not referring to the Abrahamic Covenant. Does Paul quote from Genesis 12? How about the covenantal parts of the convenantal promises in Genesis 15:7,18-21? Does he quote a verse from the language of cutting covenant in Gen 15:8-17? No! In fact the verse he quotes is 15:6. Why 15:6? The reason for the quote from 15:6 has to do with the word "recon, counted, impute." The topic of Romans 4 is the imputation of Righteousness. Please just glance through this greek text and notice the frequency of the term log

Rom 4:3 Ã„ί γὰàη γÃÂαÆὴ λέγει; εÀίÃĀεÅÃε δὲ ΑβÃÂαὰμ ÄÉ ΘεÉ, καὶ ελογίÃθη αÅÄÉ ει δικαιοÃÆ’ÃÂνην.
Rom 4:4 ÄÉ δὲ εÃÂγαζομένÉ ο μιÃθὸ οÃ… λογίζεÄαι καÄὰ ÇάÃÂιν, αλλὰ καÄὰ οÆείλημα·
Rom 4:5 ÄÉ δὲ μὴ εÃÂγαζομένÉ, ÀιÃĀεÃÂονÄι δὲ εÀὶ Äὸν δικαιοÃ…νÄα Äὸν αÃεβη λογίζεÄαι η ÀίÃĀι αÅÄοῦ ει δικαιοÃÆ’ÃÂνην,
Rom 4:6 καθάÀεàκαὶ ÃŽâ€ÃŽÂ±Ã…δ λέγει Äὸν μακαÃÂιÃμὸν ÄοÃ… ανθÃÂÎÀοÅ ο Θεὸ λογίζεÄαι δικαιοÃÆ’ÃÂνη ÇÉÃÂὶ EÃÂγÉν·
Rom 4:7 μακάÃÂιοι ν αÆέθηÃαν αι ανομίαι καὶ Eν εÀεκαλÃÂÆθηÃαν αι αμαÃÂÄίαι·
Rom 4:8 μακάÃÂιο ανὴàοÅμὴ λογίÃηÄαι ÃŽÅ¡ÃÂÃÂιο αμαÃÂÄίαν.
Rom 4:9 ο μακαÃÂιÃμὸ ον οÄο εÀὶ Äὴν ÀεÃÂιÄομὴν καὶ εÀὶ Äὴν ακÃÂοβÃ…ÃĀίαν; λέγομεν γάàι ελογίÃθη ÄÉ ΑβÃÂαὰμ η ÀίÃĀι ει δικαιοÃÆ’ÃÂνην.
Rom 4:10 ÀÉ ον ελογίÃθη; εν ÀεÃÂιÄομη oνÄι εν ακÃÂοβÃ…ÃĀία; οÃ…κ εν ÀεÃÂιÄομη, αλλ εν ακÃÂοβÃ…ÃĀία·
(excuse the cut and paste---some of the greek letters did not copy and some copied incorrectly)
The point above is that you can see the frequency of the issue within the passage. Let me also highlight and underline the same greek word in the ASV (The ASV is very litteral).

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works,
Rom 4:7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin.
Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision:

The word is used 7 times in 8 verses. The word is only missing in verse 7. Thayer defines the word logozami (recon) as follows...
"1) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over"

It is actually an accounting term referring to moving an amount from one side of the ledger to the other. In this accounting term no actual righteousness is transfer, but rather the value of the righteousness. This is a foreign righteousness.

Now you suggest the text is about "place one inside God's covenant family." The concept of a covenant family is foreign to this text.

This text is telling us the method of justification. Now the term justification is a parallel with the term salvation. The term justification occurs in Romans 4:5. There is no future justification anywhere in this text. Neither is their a future imputation of righteousness. Both are present tense.

Now for the question being addressed. What is verse 4-5 saying about justification. It is a contrast.
Verse 4 says "now to him that worketh"
Verse 5 says "But to him that worketh not"

In one verse we have works, this is contrasted in the other verse that has an absence of works. Verse 5 is a person without works.

The other contrast involves what is imputed or reckoned.
Verse 4 is the verse where there is works.... what is imputed or transfered? ---> "but of debt"
Verse 5 is the person without works.... what is imputed---------> "righteousness."

These verses do not make anyone righteous, the righteousness is outside of us and its value is transfered to our account. This is done not were sufficient works exist, but only where there is faith.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
The basis of justification is not our works, but the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Your concept of Chapter 4 is not exegetical, but isogetical. You import a concept of "convenat family" into the text where it does not exist. This is done to avoid the real issue of the text, the imputing, or reckoning of righteousness to those of faith.

 

[mondar]

Drew, this probably should have been in the individual debate section with me. Others are going to make this nastier.

 

[unred typo]

Drew, this probably should have been in the individual debate section with me. Others are going to make this nastier.

Moi, mayhaps, Mondar? Naw, this is just a little too esoteric for my one celled brain. I think I’ll let Drew explain it to you and I’ll just cheer him on. :wink:

 

[Devekut]

Aww. lets not be too hard on Mondar.

I'm sure what he meant by the statement is that if we let this contreversial topic be a free-for-all, some people will get in heated arguments.

Considering that Mondar is the Calvinist that posts the most, I could see why he might be most suited for representing the other side of Drew's arguments.

I dont think that he's infering that others are not capable nor inteligent.

 

[Drew]

Drew. it is very noticeable that when you work with Romans 4:4-5, you hardly bother to mention the text. You are saying what it means without only one or two references to the context, and no references to the vocabulary of the two verses.

I will get to Romans 4:4-5 in due time. I would like to make the argument shorter but I do not think I can.

In my last post, I finished off by asserting that in verse 22, the intent of Paul is to emphasize the faithfulness of Christ in the specific sense of His being faithful to the covenant. I therefore also claim that the "traditional view" of this verse is mistaken - namely that Paul is talking about a righteousness that we get by placing faith in Christ. In the previous post, I pointed out the translation ambiguity.

Now I wish to argue that the ambiguity of the translation - is Paul talking about Christ's faithfulness in acting in accordance with the covenant or is he talking about how we gain a status of righteousness through our faith in Him - can be resolved by looking at the inner dynamic of verses 1-21 of chapter 3. And the proper resolution, I think, is that Paul is talking about Christ's faithfulness in acting in accord with the covenant.

In Genesis 15 God establishes the covenant with Abraham. What is the purpose of the covenant? It is to solve the Adam problem - the power of sin and death in the world. How is God going to solve the Adam problem? Through Israel - many Old Testament passages speak of how the "nations will be blessed" through Israel. But, as we all know, Israel has proved faithless. Is God going to abandon the covenant and seek a new solution to the problem?

No, He is not. He will fulfill the covenant through a faithful Israelite - and we all know who that will be. Note the connection to verse 22 and how we can see how Paul might indeed be talking about Jesus as being that Israelite, acting in fidelity with the covenant.

And now for the specific scriptural support for this from Romans 3. In the following verse, Paul is basically saying "will the faithlessness of national Israel force God to somehow abandon his covenant?" The answer: Not at all!

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all!

Now, consider verse 9:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin

People often act as though the above verse does not in fact precede the following one, which is often used to simply claim that "all are sinners":

As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.

Paul is indeed saying that all are sinners, all are in Adam, but he is saying it in the specific context of contrasting Jews with Gentiles and in respect to the implied question from verse 3 about how God is acting covenantally. I reiterate: verse 2 about the entrusting of the words of God to national Israel is, I think, a strong, albeit indirect allusion to the covenant. Other translations render it as Israel being entrusted with the "oracles" of God. When you are "entrusted" with something, you are given it for the sake of others. And so it is with Israel and the covenant - God has promised to bless all the nations through His covenant with Israel.

Here is the very subtle yet very real problem - people read Romans 3:10-11 without an appreciation of the context - they do not realize that in verse 2, Paul refers to the Jews as being entrusted with the words of God, these words have been so entrusted for a specific covenental purpose - Israel was to be the means of solving the Adam problem for all the nations.

If one remembers this and allows it to inform the the "not even one is righteous" verse (verse 10b), one sees that Paul is lamenting something much more particular over and above the universality of sin - he is lamenting the absence of a faithful agent, whether Jew or Gentile, to fulfill the covenant - to act in accordance with the covenant to solve the sin of the world.

And this is all indeed relevant to the Romans 4:4-5 issue because it shows the continuing thread of the issue of the relationship of the Jews to the Gentiles, a thread that is often overlooked in analyses of chapter 3 and chapter 4.

Now we get to verse 21:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

If we look at this in covental terms, and by resolving the greek in a different but legitimate way, we can see Paul's intended meaning is something along these lines: "Now - in the present time - we can recognize that God has indeed been righteous (faithful to His covenant) and his covenant faithfulness does not make use of the Law, although it is witnessed by the Law."

God has found his faithful Israelite in the person of Jesus Christ. Paul then rounds off chapter by making this rather clear. And as we shall see, Paul still has the Jew-Gentile distinction very much in view right to the end of chapter 3. For example, in verse 29:

God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

This pervasive thread of the Jew-Gentile distinction is absolutely vital to an understanding of what exactly Paul means in Romans 4:1 when he asks the seemingly unspecific question:

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

We shall see that the answer I propose will enable us to see Romans 4:4-5 in an entirely different light. But I still need to make more remarks about the end of chapter 3.

 

[Drew]

I am sorry for taking so long to get to Romans 4:4-5. However, the whole case about those verses not being a statement against "justification by works" requires, I think, establishing a lot of context.

In the last post, I argued that the theme of God's covenant faithfulness was woven into all of chapter 3 (at least the first 22 or so verses, anyway). As further support for that position, I am going to claim the covenant faithfulness reading provides significantly greater unity and coherence to the chapter as a whole than the traditional one.

For example, the traditionalist will look at the following from chapter 3 and see it simply as a declaration about the universality of sin:

There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.

This interpretation really has no connection to verses 1 and 2 which is about the Jews and the Torah with which they have been entrusted. The entire chapter then becomes rather disjointed. On the covenental view, by contrast, the entire chapter is unified:

1. Verses 2 and 3 are about the covenant and how Israel has been faithless in respect to it.

2. When, in verse 5, Paul contrasts the faithlessness of Israel to God's faithfulness, this naturally begs the question: "How then will God be faithful to the covenant". And we see the answer in verses 21-26: Jesus is the covenentally faithful Israelite.

3. Even though verses 9 through 17 have traditionally been seen as being a general "non-covenant specific" declaration of the universality of sin, we see how it has a covenental flavour: Paul introduces this entire block with "What shall we conclude then". What has Paul just been talking about? He has been talking about Israel's covenant failure and how God will still honour his covenant. In this context, verses 9 to 17 become much more than a simple declaration of the universality of sin. They become a much more particular statement that Jew and Gentile alike are in Adam. It is easy to see that one thing Paul is saying here is that there is that the reason why the Jews, who have been given the covenental oracles of God, have been faithless in that respect is that, just like the Gentiles, they are in Adam. They are therefore simply not even able to fulfill their covenant responsiblities.

4. And of course verses 21 and 22 are Paul's statement about how God has indeed acted covenentally in the present time - His covenant faithfulness has been revealed in the faithfulness of Christ.

And we therefore see that verse 21 is not about a "righteousness we are imputed apart from 'good works' " - that view requires that "Torah" be read as "good works" - such a reading is as awkward and innapropriate here as it is in Romans 4:2. Unstead, in verse 21, Paul is saying that even though the Jews thought the Law would be the way the covenant would be fulfilled, God has acted in fidelity and provided a different way of fulfilling the covenant - a way that is "apart from Torah".

And, as a final observation, please remember that, although Paul's Jew-Gentile distinctions are often overlooked by the traditionalist - who sees verses 1 to 20 as simply about the universality of sin - these distinction are everywhere in chapter 3, not least of all in verse 29:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

As we will see, this Jew-Gentile question will give us solid ground to interpret Paul's question in 4:1 as being about this very distinction. This, in turn, will enable us to present a reading of verse 4 and 5 that is at variance with the traditionalist's view that those verses show one cannot be justified by works.

I still need to say more about the last 10 or so verses of chapter 3 before I get to chapter 4.

 

[Hugo]

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works

Here, Paul himself clearly draws this distinction - there are two ways of fulfilling Torah. One is "by faith" and the other is "by works".

I'm not sure what you mean by two ways of fulfilling here. Righteousness is only obtained by faith; So there are two ways of pursuing here, not two ways of obtaining or fulfilling it.

 

[Drew]

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works

Here, Paul himself clearly draws this distinction - there are two ways of fulfilling Torah. One is "by faith" and the other is "by works".

I'm not sure what you mean by two ways of fulfilling here. Righteousness is only obtained by faith; So there are two ways of pursuing here, not two ways of obtaining or fulfilling it.

Thanks for your comment. One thing I forgot to when I posted this material from Romans 9 was to point out that, based on sources that I think are credible, the original Greek is best translated as per the NASB least in specific respect to the stuff in bold and underline:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, (BJ)pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over (BL)the stumbling stone,

The reason that I point this out (which may not be relevant to your specific question which I will address shortly): The NIV version, in its use of the phrase "has not attained it" suggests that the "it" is a state of righteousness, when, in fact, "it" means Torah. In other words, Paul is not in any way "replacing" the Torah with "faith". Instead, he is saying that there is a way of pursuing Torah that leads to righteousness - pursuing it by "faith" - as contrasted to the way that Israel has been pursuing it - "as if by works".

My point is that Paul is not saying this:

"Israel tried to earn their justification by following Torah, but they should have realized simple faith is all that is needed"

Instead, he is saying this:

"Israel tried to earn their justification by following Torah in a legalistic way - a way which was not grounded in a real faith in the living God. However, there is another way of obedience that does lead to righteousness - obedience that is in the spirit of the following text from Deuteronomy.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength"

There are a lot of subtleties here and I worry that my intended meaning has not been conveyed. However, I want to be clear about this (and I think this is relevant to your comment): We are indeed justified by the works that our lives exhibit - I think Romans 2:7 and 2:13 are clear one this - however, there is a legalistic way of trying to get those works done and there is a "different" way of getting those works done.

And despite what people will tell you, I am not denying justification by faith, even though a "superficial" reading of my position indeed looks that way. I will not say more about this in the present post except for the following summary statement: Our faith results in the forgiveness of past sin as well as future "unintentional" sins and results in God giving us the Spirit, which then will act through us to manifest the works that will be the basis of our future justification as per Romans 2:7.

When you write "righteousnes is only obtained by faith", I agree with you but in the specific sense where indeed "works" do serve to justify us. Having come out of a standard "reformed" background, and having only recently come to believe that the reformed position has a number of problems, I am trying, "even as we speak", to work out a position that is Scripturally correct. And, of course, I do not believe the writings of the reformers are scripture. Scripture is scripture. So the fact that I am "working this out on the fly" - inspired largely by the writings of NT Wright - means that I may end up changing my mind at a moment's notice.

 

[guibox]

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

I make the same argument about the phrase "this righteousness from God", namely that it can be translated as the "this righteousnes of God" (and, in fact, the NASB does translate it as "of God" not "from God"). And, the original Greek phrase that has been here interpreted (in the NIV) as "through faith in Jesus Christ" can also be interpreted as "through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ".

I guess the problem I have with this Drew, is that even if it means 'righteousness OF God', it makes no sense in the phrasing 'comes through faith of Christ'. How exactly does God's inherent righteousness come through faith in His Son? Obviously, there is some sort of imputation and focus on the human aspect of recieving this righteousness. This is further clarified by 'for all who believe' and 'for all have sinned'.

The context shows that the righteousness OF God becomes our righteousness, for if we hadn't sinned, we'd not need any righteousness of Christ.

I'm not sure what your beef is with the idea that imputed righteousness doesn't have to be a 'once saved always saved' scenario. The fruits of the spirit and the 'vine and the branches' analogy show that good works result from a saving faith.

Is your basic premise for reinterpreting Romans 4 that you believe that both works and faith are what will save us? Like some sort of quasi-catholic theology?

 

[Veritas]

Drew, of course we can be justified in the sight of God by doing good works and observing the law. We can pursue righteousness and gain it by doing good works.

Only one person has done it though...

 

[Drew]

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

I make the same argument about the phrase "this righteousness from God", namely that it can be translated as the "this righteousnes of God" (and, in fact, the NASB does translate it as "of God" not "from God"). And, the original Greek phrase that has been here interpreted (in the NIV) as "through faith in Jesus Christ" can also be interpreted as "through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ".

I guess the problem I have with this Drew, is that even if it means 'righteousness OF God', it makes no sense in the phrasing 'comes through faith of Christ'. How exactly does God's inherent righteousness come through faith in His Son? Obviously, there is some sort of imputation and focus on the human aspect of recieving this righteousness. This is further clarified by 'for all who believe' and 'for all have sinned'.

The context shows that the righteousness OF God becomes our righteousness, for if we hadn't sinned, we'd not need any righteousness of Christ.

I'm not sure what your beef is with the idea that imputed righteousness doesn't have to be a 'once saved always saved' scenario. The fruits of the spirit and the 'vine and the branches' analogy show that good works result from a saving faith.

Is your basic premise for reinterpreting Romans 4 that you believe that both works and faith are what will save us? Like some sort of quasi-catholic theology?

Well, I guess the party of you and I lining up on the same side of things has finally come to an end........ :-D

My argument is that what has been translated in the NIV as this:

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

should be translated as this (I have, of course, filled things out a bit):

21But now God's faithfulness to His covenant, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness behaviour on the part of God is manifested by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, acting as the covenentally faithful Israelite that national Israel was not, and the result of this accrues to the benefit all all who believe.

I see not internal inconsistency or other problems here - this reading is not ruled out. I have not gone into technical arguments about Greek "genetives" that I believe allow me to interpret the text as I do.

In fact if we look at later verses, we see support for the interpretation that I am putting forward:

whom God displayed publicly as (AN)a propitiation (AO)in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the (AP)forbearance of God He (AQ)passed over the sins previously committed;

26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

I do not believe that any will argue that it is God's own righteousness that is in view - His acting righteously, that is to say in accord with the covenant.

We do indeed attain a status of righteousness through faith in Christ, but it is not Christ's righteousness. I indeed am denying the entire notion that Paul ever believed that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. And I am indeed aware, this is a highly non-mainstream view.

Note that in verses 19, Paul is framing his argument in a lawcourt formalism (I suspect you will agree with this). I submit that the Scriptures teach that God's (and therefore Christ) is the judge in the lawcourt metaphor. In Romans 2, Paul tells us who the judge is:

16on the day when, (AA)according to my gospel, (AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus

And I further suggest that an analysis of the Scriptural model of the lawcourt shows that the judge acts righteously when he does these things:

1. Acts righteously (in accordance with the Law)
2. Is impartial
3. Upholds the weak and the disenfranchised
4. Punishes the evil-doer

Since Christ is indeed the judge, to "impute" or "ascribe" such righteousness to us is to say that we have done the things in this list. And, of course, we have not.

I humbly suggest that we are getting the righteousness of the judge muddled up with the righteousness that results from the judge finding in one's favour. These are not the same things in Paul's mind (in my opinion).

And finally, I am indeed saying that, as per Romans 2:7, the works we exhibit in our lives will indeed justify us at the day of judgement. And, to make things even more confusing for you, I will still claim to believe in justification by faith - precisely because it is only through faith that the power of sin is broken and we are given the Spirit who "does the work for us".

 

[Veritas]

And finally, I am indeed saying that, as per Romans 2:7, the works we exhibit in our lives will indeed justify us at the day of judgement. And, to make things even more confusing for you, I will still claim to believe in justification by faith - precisely because it is only through faith that the power of sin is broken and we are given the Spirit who "does the work for us".

okay... so... I read that as good works resulting from saving faith.

We do indeed attain a status of righteousness through faith in Christ, but it is not Christ's righteousness.

Have you thought about the following?

He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 1 Corinthians 1:30

Also, i'm throwing in another verse to think about. Maybe it will give a little extra insight.

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. Isaiah 61:10

 

[Drew]

okay... so... I read that as good works resulting from saving faith.

Hello:

The above is not my intended meaning. Surprising as it may seem, I am indeed saying that works are indeed the basis for receiving eternal life, not simply a result of saving faith. And yes, this puts my position out of the "mainstream" of post-reformation protestantism.

I cannot see how to make sense of these Romans 2 texts from Paul if we are not justified by the works that we exhibit:

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

I find the most common reading of these verses to be utterly implausible - that Paul is referring to a path of justification that no one will take. I humbly suggest that if one reads the text this way, Paul would have to be an awfully confused person to make such statements and intend that we are to take them as being a path to justification that none will take. I have argued this at some length in other recent posts. What kind of a writer would basically say: "There will indeed be works-based condemnation for both Jew and Gentile as there will also be works-based justification for both Jew and Gentile" and to intend his reader to understand that the set of those thus condemned will contain some people while the set of those justified will contain zero people.

 

[Drew]

I will now continue addressing Romans 3:21-31 with the goal of eventually arguing against the "you cannot be justified works" interpretation of Romans 4:4-5 which is the whole purpose of my initiation of this thread.

I have already begun to argue that in Romans 3:21-22, Paul is not talking about an "imputed" righteousness that we get from God, but is rather talking about God's own righteousness - his own covenant faithfulness. Jesus is the faithful Israelite that national Israel was not. Part of my argument is that the original Greek supports two different ways of translating Greek statements such as the "righteousness of God". One way (the way that mainstream reformation Protestatism has translated it) is to translate it as "a righteousness that we get from God". The other (which I think is correct) is "God's own righteousness as exhibited by His covenant faithfulness".

Consider verse 23:

23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

I suggest that if take the earlier part of chapter 3 seriously, we conclude that Paul is saying something much more particular than "all are sinners". He is saying that "Jew and Gentile alike" are sinners. In verse 9, he has written:

We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

and in verse 29, he writes:

God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

The important point is that the Jew-Gentile distinction pervades all of Romans 3 and spills over into chapter 4. This theme should inform our interpretation of Romans 4:4-5.

Consider verse 24:

24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

I submit that, as is the case with other texts, this verse is often interpreted in isolation as simply a reference to the substitutionary atoning death of Jesus. I suggest that Paul's readers in the church at Rome would see things in a much more particular way. They would tend to see redemption not in an abstract "judicial" sense, they would see it in terms of redemption from Egypt.

And on what was the undergirding reason for God's redemption of his people from Egypt? It was because it was precisely this that God has covenentally agreed to do. Consider the following from the famous covenant initation passasge of Genesis 15:

Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.

The redemption that is spoken of in Romans 3:24 is precisely God's covenant faithfulness as specifically manifested "in the present time" as per Romans 3:21.

 

[Drew]

A short "interlude" post before I resume the long slow march to Romans 4:4-5 and my argument against the view that Paul is saying that works are not an issue for our justification.

Underlying what I have been saying, perhaps not explicitly argued, is my belief that when Paul and all the writers of Scripture write about acquiring "righteousness" or being "justified", the primary meaning is covenantal. I believe that most protestants see "justification" as being a "forensic" term - a term whose meaning is derived from the lawcourt. I suggest that the covenant theme is primary and the lawcourt meaning is essentially a metaphor that Paul uses in service of the primary covenantal theme.

I will use this principle, which perhaps has only been covered in an "indirect" manner thus far, as part of my argument that the "worker working" reference in Romans 4:4-5:

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness

is really a metaphor - Paul is not, as is commonly believed, saying that its "justification by faith versus by good works".

I want to be clear though, my argument for my position on this Romans 4 text will have support other than simply an appeal to this principle - at least I believe it will.

 

[Drew]

Continuing on at the end part of Romans 3. Here are verses 25 and 26:

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

In earlier verses, such as verse 21, there is a certain degree of ambiguity - is Paul talking about an "imputed" righteousness that we get, or is he talking about God' own righteousness - His acting in fidelity with the covenant. I suggest that in the above verses, it is clear that Paul is writing about God's covenant faithfulness. I will also assert that the reference to "at the present time" is an echo of the "but now..." phrasing in the "controversial" verse 21. I think this adds some credibility to the alternate reading of verse 21 - that "righteounsness from God" should be read as "God's own righteousness".

And now verse 27:

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

For some reason, people usually see this as Paul's repudiation of the boast of the "morally self-righteous" man who boasts that he is justified on the basis of his "good works". I think a different reading is called for.

This is not the boast of the person who does "good works" - it is the boast of Jew, who thinks that his ethnicity - his possession of Torah (remember the verse refers to "the law", which alone casts on the traditional interpretation) makes him somehow special - automatically justified solely on the basis of his ethnicity.

And that Paul is here talking specifically about the Jew here is driven home by what he then goes on to write:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

The "traditional reading" provides a far less integrated text - with Paul bouncing back and forth between a "we are all saved by faith and not works" position to a treatment of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles - a distinction that is really irrelevant if indeed verse 27 is about the boast of the morally self-righteous and not the boast of the Jew.

Paul, in chapter 3, is talking about the covenant and how God has been faithful to it. He continually returns to the theme of how the Jews and the Gentiles are really part of the same family in Christ.

This is hugely important for my ultimate purposes here. Why? Precisely because I am going to argue that the context of chapter 3 helps us determine what question Paul is really asking in his otherwise seemingly non-specific opener to chapter 4:

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?"

I think that Paul is really asking this (and I hope you can see how this makes sense given what chapter 3 is all about):

"What then shall we say, have we found Abraham to be our father according to the flesh?"