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

[Drew]

That's one of the problems Drew... you think. I'm convinced...

I do not believe that the reader will decide that your position is the correct one simply because you claim to be more convinced of the truth of it than I am of my position.

The factual correctness of a certain doctrine is not determined by the fervor with which it is held. One need only look at Islamic fundamentalism to know this.

Please, stop thinking, get on your knees and pray and listen to the one and only teacher in things scriptural, the Holy Spirit.

This sounds very much like an "my theology is right because it is from the Holy Spirit and yours isn't because it is your own invention" idea. That is a question-begging stance. We are both reading the same scriptures, we both have minds, we both think. Please do not imply that you have some special access to God's truth that others do not.

I assume you believe that the Scriptures are the final authority and that personal claims of revealed truth that contradict the Scriptures are to be dismissed. Let's discuss the Scriptures then. I happen to think that Paul means what he says when says:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

You are forced into an extremely awkward take on this text and I think the reader will expect some pretty compelling evidnence to overturn the plain implications of this passage.

 

[Drew]

[Are you really reading my posts Drew? :-?

Yes I am.

Aah, just when you thought you had Paul all figured out. ;-) Peter said Paul wasn't easy to understand. Also remember the target audience most likely understood him better than we do.

Being hard to understand - I have no quibble here. But let's be clear. We have Paul saying this in Romans 2:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

You are effectively saying these things about this passage:

1. In fact, not all people will present at this judgment, despite the fact that Paul does not in any way qualify his reference to "each person".

2. Since the church will not be present at this judgement, and since you presumably believe that no one will get eternal life based on "persistence in doing good", Paul is, in verse 7, describing a path to justification that zero persons will take.

I leave it to the reader: does that sound sensible, given Paul's advanced education as a Pharisee and, I would claim, evidence from other writings that he is an exceedingly competent and sophisticated writer.

 

[Drew]

Consider Romans 2:13:

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

1. This text appears smack-dab in the middle of the description of the judgement, which runs basically from verse 5 to verse 16. To argue that it is about something that will occur in the context of some other judgement seems highly implausible.

2. Verse 13 describes people being justified - do I need to give the old testament background as to what this means? When a person is justified, it means that the person is declared to be a member of God's covenant family. And even though the Jews expected justification to take a political form (they would be justified in the sight of the nations), it has turned out that God's justification is made manifest by raising people from the dead (reference Ezekial 37).

3. So verse 13, like verse 7, describes how people will be delared to be in God's family - and raised to eternal life, based on being "doers of the Law".

4. It seems the only way one can argue that the church will not be subject to verse 13 is to claim they will not be at this judgement. So, like verse 7. Paul is apparently saying something that will be true of zero persons. That is an extremely odd way to write - describe a judgement scenario and make some statements that are true about it - that wrath will be meted out - and yet make other statements that are false (namely 2:7 and 2:13).

5. The reader is free to judge whether it makes sense for Paul to:

a. Use justification-language in verse 13, the language of the great hope of the Jews for millennia;

b. Know that God raised Jesus from the dead for the very purposes of justification (effectively making Him a template for justification - the "first-fruits");

c. Describe that justification being carried out at a great future judgement - all the while intending the reader to believe that the church will be entirely absent when the final act of justification, following the pattern of Jesus (being raised from the dead) is actually carried out.

6. A common position in response to point 4 is to say that Romans 3 goes on to say that none can be justified by keeping the Law, so we need to re-interpret Romans 2.

7. Such a defence fails to understand that, in Christ, the covenant has been renewed and we get the "law written on our hearts". The following is a covenant renewal passage from Deuteronomy that Paul alludes to in Romans 10:6 and following:

Now what I am commanding you today (***obedience to God's commands - see context) is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

7. Remember, the stuff in Romans 3 that is often used to rework Romans 2 occurs before this pivotal text (3:21,22), and I realize I am giving a "Drew" version of it - I have already defended this "rendering":

But now, in the present time, God's covenant faithfulness has been revealed, apart from law, but witnessed by the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness behaviour on the part of God is manifested through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and this accrues to the benefit of all who believe.

In a number of places in Romans, Paul clearly describes how covenant renewal brings the "law" to our hearts so that we can do it. We can be justified by our works - through covenant renewal, sin was condemned in the flesh of Jesus, its power broken.

The common "reformed" position seems to rework Romans 2 as if the following were not true:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

I believe that we fail to "claim" the promises (such as the Deuteronomy 30) text that go with covenant renewal, perhaps because we do not see the covenant history that is there throughout Romans - a history wherein God, through Christ, has acted in fidelity with the covenant and broken the power of sin. Jesus' death and resurrection is the climax of the covenant.

We can pass the bar of Romans 2:7 and 2:13 after all.

 

[Drew]

Drew, What do these verses mean to you?

1 Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. (classic pre-wrath)

1 Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, (again, classic pre-wrath)

I am coming to believe this: resurrection from the dead is actually the form a favourable judgement as per Romans 2:7 and 2:13 will take. Those "destined for eternal life with God" are not raised and then judged, their being raised and given resurrection bodies constitutes the favourable judgement for them. The raising from the dead is their justification.

I see no conflict between this view and either of the verses you post.

When and why is the ekklesia judged? Do you believe in two resurrections; one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous? There is also the verse in Revelation saying the second death has no power over those who partake in the first resurrection.

My present view about this is as follows: Only the righteous (as per Romans 2:7 and 2:13) are raised and given the kind of body described in 1 Corinthians 15 - as stated, their resurrection is the manifestation of a favourable judgment. The "lost" are not given resurrection bodies at all - they are indeed "judged" and cast into the lake of fire and are destroyed.

I am speculating here and obviously the view may be wrong. But I remain convinced that we must have the church at the Romans 2 judgement, whatever the other details are. I just cannot believe that Paul is the kind of thinker who would write Romans 2 the way he did, and not intend us to believe that this judgement is for all humanity. More on that later.

 

[Drew]

Another reason why Romans 2 really requires the church to be present at the "works" judgement that is described there: Consider this text from Romans 2, given in the context of the description of the judgement:

The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker

I assume we all agree that somebody will be subject to the Romans 2 judgement. In the above text, we have 2 representative people. One who will be condemned and one is described as "doing the condemning". I take it a self-evident point of logic that this second person - the Gentile who 'obeys the law' - is himself not condemned. Is this second person at the Romans 2 judgement. It seems that he must be so that he can "condemn" this other person who obviously is at this judgement.

But if the church is not at the Romans 2 jusdgement, we have a mysterious interloper who, obviously is at the judgement since he is "condemning" the disobedient Jew. But, he is rather obviously is declared to be justified - it would not make sense for one "condemned" person to condemn another.

Who is this person who condemns, if not a member of those who are justified? That person must be present at the Romans 2 judgement.

 

[Vic C.]

Another reason why Romans 2 really requires the church to be present at the "works" judgement that is described there: Consider this text from Romans 2, given in the context of the description of the judgement:

The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker

(explanation)
Whoa! Back up a moment. This is not in any way part of the White Throne Judgment or any Divine judgment. This is an earthly judgment; gentiles rebuking hypocritical Jews, like Jesus had done with the religions leaders. Here we have Jews judging gentiles, but are acting against the Law. He's telling them these gentiles, who are uncircumcised but living in accordance to the very law they (Jews) are not upholding, have every right to judge them accordingly.

I assume we all agree that somebody will be subject to the Romans 2 judgement.

Absolutely; I never denied that.

In the above text, we have 2 representative people. One who will be condemned and one is described as "doing the condemning". I take it a self-evident point of logic that this second person - the Gentile who 'obeys the law' - is himself not condemned. Is this second person at the Romans 2 judgement. It seems that he must be so that he can "condemn" this other person who obviously is at this judgement.

But if the church is not at the Romans 2 jusdgement, we have a mysterious interloper who, obviously is at the judgement since he is "condemning" the disobedient Jew. But, he is rather obviously is declared to be justified - it would not make sense for one "condemned" person to condemn another.

Who is this person who condemns, if not a member of those who are justified? That person must be present at the Romans 2 judgement.

That interpretation is not proper. My explanation above solves this alleged dilemma. The only One doing the judging here in this final "works" judgment is God. (Rev 20:11-12) The righteous in Christ will be given the task of judging during the Millennium. (Rev 20:4) Note; 1,000 years before the White Throne Judgment! Oh, the ekklesia may be present for the final judgment, but they will not be subjected to judgment. They've already received their stephanos (crowns).

Drew, it may help if you take some time to study eschatology. It really helps when trying to set time lines of the various judgments and who is being judged. We are coming at this from two completely different Biblical perspectives. I have an entirely different understanding of what transpired at the Cross and may understand the sacrificial system of atoning for sin in a way that is alien to you. :smt102

 

[Drew]

Perhaps, perhaps, verse 27, does not describe something that will happen at the judgement at which Jesus is judge (in Romans 2). OK, forget that point.

Here is something which inarguably is part of that judgement:

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 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. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

If you say that no members of the church are judged at this judgement, then you have Paul, once again describing a path to justification that no one will take. You are saying that the set of those who obey that law and will be thereby declared righteous (verse 13) will contain zero persons. You are also saying that Paul again refers to a set with zero persons in it when he refers to those who "do by nature the things required by the law". There have to be zero of these persons for your argument to work.

Anyone familar with Paul knows that he is not that wonky and confused of a writer- he is a deeply sophisticated and subtle one. What kind of a writer would describe an apocalyptic judgement like this and intend the reader to "screen out" the parts about how people are justified by their works (verses 7, 10, 13, 14). You are asking the reader to believe that he is talking about something that won't happen in what is otherwise a description of something that will.

I may not have studied eschatology much, but I have studied Romans in quite a lot of detail. I cannot emphasize enough - it is entirely not like Paul to write Romans 2 the way he did and intend us to have to go back and effectively strike parts of it out. Paul does not do this kind of thing, I suggest.

What he does do is leave questions dangling, making the reader wait for the full story. That is a far cry from having him write stuff that is effectively misleading and downright false. And Paul does explain himself later - in Romans 8 and in Romans 10 - God has brought the law "to our hearts and put it in our hands so that we may do it". That resolves the teaser of Romans 2 - we do not need to screen half of it out.

To be fair to your position, if one is willing to believe that Paul would describe a path to justification that none will take at a judgement at which Jesus is the judge, then your position is not undermined by Romans 2. I am not prepared to go that far. I hope and expect that the eschatological picture can be made to work without doing such violence to Romans 2.

Are you not saying that, despite what Paul writes in the following, there will be glory and honour and peace for zero persons at the Romans 2 judgement:

"there will be....but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good"

If the church is not judged at the Romans 2 judgement, the above is true of precisely zero persons.

And 2:7 is true of zero persons

And 2:13 is true of zero persons.

I just cannot believe that Paul is that scattered a thinker.

 

[Vic C.]

Wow... Paul says no such thing. That is the reason for much of what he has written in this Passage. There is a law of nature which some will follow and some will not. We also know that as the Law that God writes on the hearts of men. People outside of the ekklesia, Jews and gentiles will be judged according to this law, whether they realize or not they are or aren't in accord with it.

Remember, there is neither Jew not Gentile in the ekklesia. I can't stress that enough.

Vic is out for the weekend pretty much. I will be checking in to activate accounts and check who's being good and who's being bad, just like Santa, LOL. I won't have much time to respond to this or much this weekend. Plus, my Giants are playing for Superbowl rights! :-D

Drew, please consider my words on the importance and position of God's ekklesia in time of wrath and judgment.

Peace,
Vic

 

[Drew]

Wow... Paul says no such thing. That is the reason for much of what he has written in this Passage. There is a law of nature which some will follow and some will not. We also know that as the Law that God writes on the hearts of men. People outside of the ekklesia, Jews and gentiles will be judged according to this law, whether they realize or not they are or aren't in accord with it.

I do not follow you here. Please answer the following questions:

1. In Romans 2, Paul writes this:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

You have said that the church will not be judged at this judgement. Given this belief, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that precisely zero persons will be given eternal life as a result of their persistence in doing good? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish.

2. In Romans 2, Paul writes:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

Given your belief that no Christians will be judged at the Romans 2 judgement, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that precisely zero persons will receive glory and honour and peace at the Romans 2 judgement? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish.

3. In Romans 2,Paul writes:

For 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.

Given your belief that no Christians will be judged at the Romans 2 judgement, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that, at the Romans 2 judgement, precisely zero persons will be declared righteous in virtue of their obeying the law? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish.