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

[mondar]

Please consider Romans 4:2

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutâ€â€but not before God.

Viewed as an isolated statement, it is clear that Paul could be saying either of the following (and there are perhaps other possibilities as well):

1. If Abraham was justified by doing good works, then..........
2. If Abraham was justified by the works of Torah that mark out the Jew from the Gentile.....

If one comes to verse 2, simply reads the word "works" and then uncritically assumes meaning number 1, then one is not really objectively standing back and being open to alternatives. We all (myself included) need to be able to step back and challenge the "received wisdom" about what this text means. And obviously interpretation 2 is indeed a possibility.

Granted, verses 4 and 5 with their non-Torah specificity of a man working for his pay do, at first glance anyway, do seem to suggest that Paul is talking issues of "effort" as set against "faith". I will not talk yet about these verses in detail, except to point out the obvious - the workman is a metaphor, and we need to temper our reading of those verses in that light. There is zero doubt that this is indeed a metaphor since the topic at hand is not about how workers get compensated, it is about justification of the believer. To be fair, the fact that these 2 verses are metaphorical does not rule out interpretation number 1 in respect to what Paul is talking about in verse 2. I hope to deal with verses 4 and 5 in more detail in a future post.

Anyway, when we ask ourselves what Paul is really talking about in verse 2, it helps to read on and see what he says - his following statements do indeed resolve the ambiguity in favour of reading 2 - that Paul is talking about the distinctive works of Torah, not "good works" in verse 2.

To be fair, the verse 3 through verse 8 block is open to both construals about the issue in verse 2. I think that there is not much there to favour one interpretation over the other. In defence of my position I would argue that it is telling that Paul picks specifically on the father of national Israel as his example here. To me, this suggests that he is focussing on Torah specifities and not "good works" in general. But, I do not think this is a particularly strong point. Here is the text:

What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
4Now 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. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

On the other hand, verses 9-12 strongly suggest that Paul has indeed been talking about the ethnic specificities of Torah all along in chapter 4, and in particular, verse 2. What does this block of verses deal with? It deals with circumcision - an aspect of Torah that marked out the Jew from his pagan neighbour:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Here is where I would request an answer from those who believe that Paul is making a "faith versus good works" argument in the first bit of Romans 4: Why, if Paul wants to set faith against "good works", does he specifically amplify his treatment of Abraham with a discussion of circumcision - an act that is clearly an ethnic specificity of Torah and is most definitely not an act that anyone would consider to be a fundamental issue of acting "morally", ie.performing 'good work'?

If Paul was really talking about justification by faith and not by 'good works', why not have an example where Abraham was described to have been justified independent of his having given money to an orphan or cared for the sick? These are clearly "good works" and would have strongly suggested that Paul was indeed setting faith against 'good works'.

But, of course, Paul does not do this, he homes in on circumcision as he amplifies on what he says in verse 2. Circumcision is a well known act that specifically marks out ethnic Israel. It is not an issue of 'good works'.

Drew, the torah is not in view in Romans 4:2. This is obvious because Abraham is before the giving of the Law. Circumcusion is merely a sign of the abrahamic covenant for the physical descent of Abraham. There is no law.

So then the statements in verse 4-5 are not about law either. OF course the works of the law would be the highest expression of works, and so you could include a concept of the works of the law in Pauls statements in verses 4-5. IF works save, the works of the law would save quicker then any other works. NEvertheless, Pauls statments in 4:1-5 are about any works. Works are the result of justification, not the cause.

 

[Drew]

Drew, the torah is not in view in Romans 4:2. This is obvious because Abraham is before the giving of the Law. Circumcusion is merely a sign of the abrahamic covenant for the physical descent of Abraham. There is no law.

Are you suggesting that the directive to circumcise all males is not part of Torah? I will have to get back to you on this. I know of a source which provides an argument that circumcision is indeed properly understood to be a "work" of Torah. But I do not have access to that source. But, to be fair, the reader needs to keep an open stance on this, neither accepting mondar's assertion (that circumcision is a sign and not a "work" of Torah) or mine (that it is part of the law) until relevant arguments have been made. I may start a thread on this very topic once I have marshalled some content.

So then the statements in verse 4-5 are not about law either. OF course the works of the law would be the highest expression of works, and so you could include a concept of the works of the law in Pauls statements in verses 4-5. IF works save, the works of the law would save quicker then any other works. NEvertheless, Pauls statments in 4:1-5 are about any works. Works are the result of justification, not the cause.

Obviously the correctness of this depends on the resolution of the previous issue. I would urge all readers to be fair here. When Paul refers to "works" in chapter 2, is he referring to "good works" - even those aspects of the Torah which prescribe moral behaviour, or is he referring to the "works of Torah" in a different sense - in the sense of the works of Torah being a "badge" of covenant membership - demarcating "markers" of who is in the covenant people of God.

If one is going to approach this issue fairly, one needs to explore both possibilties, regardless of what tradition one is coming from. And I want to be clear - mondar has never simply countered my points by an explicit appeal to the authority of tradition. And that is good.

I think that Romans 3:30 suggests that Paul is indeed focussed on redressing the notion that both Gentile and Jew can be in the covenant family:

since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

So it would not be unexpected that in basically the very next breath, Romans 4:2, Paul was referring to the works of Torah as specifically being a marker - an "identifier" - of who is in the covenant family. I will look into this more.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
Your original statement was "The traditional view removes all works from the salvation equation"

I guess it depends upon how you look at that statement. Of course Calvinists have works. Calvinists affirm works, but say salvation results in works. You think you have to be righteous enough to merit or earn salvation with your works. Both have works in the equation.

It is you that have misrepresented my view of Calvinism in the past. Maybe you have confused mine with that of someone else. It can be confusing, keeping all the views straight on here. The problem is that the issue is a little complex even though it is simple once you have all the verses headed in the right direction. Several things are undisputable, and we all agree on them. Works cannot undo our sin. Whether we work or not, our work is not what pays for sin. We can’t boast that we paid our way to heaven, whether we do works or not. The blood of Christ is necessary to remove our sin. Salvation is by the grace of God, whether we work or not. How we put these together with the commands of Christ is where we differ.

quote by mondar:
Now above you clarify what you mean (of course you include some name calling-thats nothing new for you). Now by the above post that you made, are you allowing for Calvinists to include works in the equation.... You accept that Calvinists believe salvation always results in works?

I wish you wouldn’t portray me in such a bad light. You’ll make Vic think I’m picking on you again. What name calling did I do? I have no idea. Tell me what hurt your feelings and I’ll rephrase it for you.

I know you have maintained that works are included in the salvation as a result but I don’t remember you saying that salvation always results in works. Does this mean that if someone dies and they did no works, you can assume they are in no way saved? Is this your personal version of Calvinism or Mac’s or is it generally accepted by all degrees of Calvinists?

 

[Drew]

In advance of doing more research on the question of whether circumcion is a work of Torah, I want to present the last bit of Romans 3, concatenated with the first bit of Romans 4. I use the "Young's Literal Translation" here:

27 therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

29The God of Jews only [is He], and not also of nations?

30yes, also of nations; since one [is] God who shall declare righteous the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through the faith.

31Law then do we make useless through the faith? let it not be! yea, we do establish law.

1 What, then, shall we say Abraham our father, to have found, according to flesh?

2for if Abraham by works was declared righteous, he hath to boast -- but not before god;

I will take it as self-evident that Paul is referring to the same thing when he refers to "works" in verse 27 of chapter 3 and verse 2 of chapter 4. Feel free to dispute this. I am going to cynical and risk being seen as patronizing when I suggest that the "works as 'good works' " reading of 4:2 may be due, for some people, to the chapter boundary between 3 and 4. And I am going to assume that the original letter did not have these boundaries. Perhaps I am wrong about this. By failing to connect 4:2 to the end of chapter 3, they miss what I think is a clear indication of what Paul really means when he refers to "works".

If we read the above as a single block, and grant that "works" in verse 27 means the same thing as works in 4:2 (Paul would have to be a pretty wonky writer if this were not the case, not least in light of the "what then" connective to start chapter 4), then I think that 3:29-30 provide compelling evidence that Paul means "works" to be taken as those aspects of Torah that demarcate the Jew from the Gentile, not as "moral good works" in general. Note how Paul seems concerned with driving home the following point: both Jew and Gentile can be declared righteous:

29The God of Jews only [is He], and not also of nations?

30yes, also of nations; since one [is] God who shall declare righteous the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through the faith.

If by "works", Paul intends to refer to "good works", the Jew-Gentile distinction is hardly relevant - since what would be true for the Jew - that good works do not justify - would also be true for the Gentile.

If we are to assume that Paul is not wildly oscillating between two different themes - the Jew-Gentile distinction and "justification not by good works", it makes much more sense to read "works" as those aspects Torah that distinguish the Jew from the Gentile. Then we get thematic unity.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - forgive me... you have most kind in my questions... I would wish your 'cheerleader' would learn to be as gracious.

Since you are familiar with Wright and the "New Paul" movement, have your writings here on Romans been your own work, or are you merely echoing what Wright has written?

How do we know that you are just not having your 'ears tickled' by Wright, so you agree with him?

 

[Drew]

Since you are familiar with Wright and the "New Paul" movement, have your writings here on Romans been your own work, or are you merely echoing what Wright has written?

I would say that the "basic ideas" are 90 % those of NT Wright and 10 % "mine", but its hard to draw the line. Of course, the style of expression is indeed mine almost all the time.

How do we know that you are just not having your 'ears tickled' by Wright, so you agree with him?

I am kind of surprised that you would pursue this line of thinking since you can probably anticipate my response: How do we know that your ears have not been "tickled" by Luther, Calvin and company?

Why not tell me why this argument of Wright's against the standard reformend position is wrong? You must hold the reformed position on the matter of justification for a reason that you can articulate, unless you claim that the true position has been "beamed" into your mind. So if your position is correct, you should be able to critique the actual content of the argument. It really is a distraction to speculate about motivations. We have the text, we have historical information,...let's rock.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Since you are familiar with Wright and the "New Paul" movement, have your writings here on Romans been your own work, or are you merely echoing what Wright has written?

I would say that the "basic ideas" are 90 % those of NT Wright and 10 % "mine", but its hard to draw the line. Of course, the style of expression is indeed mine almost all the time.

So, are we to believe then that this look into Romans 4:4-5 is not the work of Drew, but in fact the work of NT Wright? Is there a reason that you did not mention NT Wright in the OP? Are we all to assume that you use NT Wright?

I am trying to understand where this "study" (not really a study, since you placed it in the Apologetics forum) is coming from - Drew or NT Wright. At first I thought it was just Drew's work, now it appears that 90% of it is from NT Wright, yet up until this point no mention of Wright. Should he not get the credit?

How do we know that you are just not having your 'ears tickled' by Wright, so you agree with him?

I am kind of surprised that you would pursue this line of thinking since you can probably anticipate my response: How do we know that your ears have not been "tickled" by Luther, Calvin and company?

Why not tell me why this argument of Wright's against the standard reformend position is wrong? You must hold the reformed position on the matter of justification for a reason that you can articulate, unless you claim that the true position has been "beamed" into your mind. So if your position is correct, you should be able to critique the actual content of the argument. It really is a distraction to speculate about motivations. We have the text, we have historical information,...let's rock.

You are making assumptions like your cheerleader, unred. I have not given you my understanding on this passage. I might agree with you, well - let's be honest, NT Wright. or I might not. What is also clear is that you nor unred having any idea who the Radical Reformers were. If you did, you would then know that I would not necessarily agree with Luther.

The Radical Reformers would not have spoken of "justification by faith alone". However, unlike unred, the Radical Reformers did understand that there is a difference between salvation and justification.

 

[RadicalReformer]

How do we know that you are just not having your 'ears tickled' by Wright, so you agree with him?

I am kind of surprised that you would pursue this line of thinking since you can probably anticipate my response: How do we know that your ears have not been "tickled" by Luther, Calvin and company?

Let's persue this a tad... we should ask ourselves, why would I use this line of thinking, when you could easily say the same of me?

First, I will say that my ears have not been tickled by Luther or Calvin... in fact, they had some very nasty things to say about the Radical Reformers.

So - how do we know when our ears are being tickled versus when we have been given an understanding of the Truth from the Holy Spirit.

ohhh.. and unred, If you do not mind, I am going to respond to you in this post... you are the one that came out swinging against me. You have a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. As I stated before, orthodoxy simply means "right belief". I would hope that our desire would be for "right belief'. We cannot have "right belief" outside of Truth. Plain and Simple.

I personally do not see where further discussion with you on this topic will be fruitful, therefore, you may have the last word and all the glory found within.

 

[Drew]

At first I thought it was just Drew's work, now it appears that 90% of it is from NT Wright, yet up until this point no mention of Wright. Should he not get the credit?

I have presented the views of Wright so often in so many threads, that if I credited Wright in each post, people would get irritated by the repetition - and they are no doubt irritated enough already. I have repeatedly given Wright the credit - check out my posts and you will see.

In any event, I am not sure where this is going - the ideas are what they are and whose head they come from is not the issue. I have never intended to represent these ideas as my own. The issue is whether the argument is faithful to Paul's intended meaning. I would really like to talk about the scriptures and not this "whose idea is this" issue.

I have not given you my understanding on this passage. I might agree with you, well - let's be honest, NT Wright. or I might not. What is also clear is that you nor unred having any idea who the Radical Reformers were. If you did, you would then know that I would not necessarily agree with Luther.

Fair enough, why not tell us what you believe about this whole issue then.

 

[unred typo]

ohhh.. and unred, If you do not mind, I am going to respond to you in this post... you are the one that came out swinging against me. You have a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. As I stated before, orthodoxy simply means "right belief". I would hope that our desire would be for "right belief'. We cannot have "right belief" outside of Truth. Plain and Simple.

I personally do not see where further discussion with you on this topic will be fruitful, therefore, you may have the last word and all the glory found within.

That’s alright, radical reformer. It’s too aggravating trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn’t know or admit what they said, and keeps talking about the discussion instead of discussing the issue. I’m going to give you the last word and you can share the glory with your alter ego:

RadicalReformer wrote:

Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxy comes from God. God is Truth. There can be only ONE Orthodox.

Therefore, Orthodox does equal Truth. Not tradtion.

You implied something into the question, rather than reading the words that were there. I never said that the traditional view was correct, could not be challeneged, or should not be challeneged. I merely asked who was Drew to challenge it.

Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

 

[unred typo]

At first I thought it was just Drew's work, now it appears that 90% of it is from NT Wright, yet up until this point no mention of Wright. Should he not get the credit?

I have presented the views of Wright so often in so many threads, that if I credited Wright in each post, people would get irritated by the repetition - and they are no doubt irritated enough already. I have repeatedly given Wright the credit - check out my posts and you will see.

In any event, I am not sure where this is going - the ideas are what they are and whose head they come from is not the issue. I have never intended to represent these ideas as my own. The issue is whether the argument is faithful to Paul's intended meaning. I would really like to talk about the scriptures and not this "whose idea is this" issue.

I have not given you my understanding on this passage. I might agree with you, well - let's be honest, NT Wright. or I might not. What is also clear is that you nor unred having any idea who the Radical Reformers were. If you did, you would then know that I would not necessarily agree with Luther.

Fair enough, why not tell us what you believe about this whole issue then.

Since I have significantly messed up your thread, Drew, I would like to clear up this issue, if I can:

This thread of Drew’s is a separate analysis of the verses that have been key to a subject that has bouncing around this board for a while. Whenever Drew entered any of these discussions and began to quote NT Wright, he did credit him ad nauseam. At first he quoted him extensively and then as he began to research Wright’s view in his own studies, he still gave him credit for the ideas he used in his own expositions of the texts. I can attest that he gave ample recognition to him, and to the point that I thought he should just add the disclaimer to his tag line. Mondar also should be able to confirm this. Since these discussions generally run into pages and pages, it wasn’t as easy as I thought to find Drew’s disclosures, but I quickly did find these:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30619&start=15

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30198&start=0

This is a typical quote:

by Drew on Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:21 am
Before I begin my post, I need to acknowledge that my ideas here are not substantially my own, but are rather those of NT Wright (or at least my understanding of his views).

Since I have been appointed Drew’s ‘cheerleader’, I felt it was my duty to support him in this false allegation. (Rah Rah sis boom bah. ) Plagiarism being one of my pet peeves, I would have noticed if Drew were merely pasting Wright’s view as his own. At this point, I think Drew could teach Wright a thing or two about Romans. He has become less annoying with his mention of the N T word and more articulate of his own rendering of these same verses, so I believe he feels less inclined to constantly announce the original source of his ideas. They are his views at this point.

So it would be refreshing if the opposition to these views would deal with them and stop putting up smoke screens and barriers to the discussion of the real subject. Unless you have no objections to the material Drew has presented and must admit that his treatise is a preferable alternative to traditional, ‘orthodox’ interpretations of Romans. (But I don’t expect to see such an admission in print.)

PS I just tried to get a few more of Drew's references to NT Wright for this post so I did a search of his posts with the word 'Wright" and got 5 pages of references... that's not 5 references but 5 pages of references, btw.

 

[Drew]

Drew, the torah is not in view in Romans 4:2. This is obvious because Abraham is before the giving of the Law.

I really do not think this works. It appears that you are arguing that since Abraham is described as being justified before the giving of Torah, Torah is not in view in 4:2. Here is the relevant text:

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

I agree with you - Abraham was "credited righteousness" before Torah was given. But this certainly does not means that 4:2 is not about Torah.

Paul underscores this "timing" issue in support of his point that Abraham's justification could not be grounded in the ethnic specificities of Torah precisely because his justification precedes the giving of Torah.

I do not see how the "timing" issue at all undermines the plausibility of the assertion that Torah (and specifically its 'ethnic specificities' such as circumcision) are not in view in 4:2.

 

[mondar]

Drew, the torah is not in view in Romans 4:2. This is obvious because Abraham is before the giving of the Law. Circumcusion is merely a sign of the abrahamic covenant for the physical descent of Abraham. There is no law.

Are you suggesting that the directive to circumcise all males is not part of Torah? I will have to get back to you on this. I know of a source which provides an argument that circumcision is indeed properly understood to be a "work" of Torah. But I do not have access to that source. But, to be fair, the reader needs to keep an open stance on this, neither accepting mondar's assertion (that circumcision is a sign and not a "work" of Torah) or mine (that it is part of the law) until relevant arguments have been made. I may start a thread on this very topic once I have marshalled some content.

Drew, the rite of circumcision may have also been part of the later law, but that is not an issue when Abraham is mentioned. Abraham and circumcision preceeds the giving of the torah. The actual giving of the Law to Israel occurs in Exodus in the days of Moses. The rite of circumcision begins in Genesis 18 with Abraham. How could Abraham be under the Law when the Law was not yet given? Moses and the law is not in view in Romans 4.
Now you make reference below to Genesis 3:30. It is true that the word circumcision appears in the verse you quote. However, 3:30 does not demonstrate that the concept of circumcision is related exclusively to the law. Now you could go back to chapter 2, but that is a different context from 3:30.
We could look at Chapter 2. Their the word "Law" and "Circumcision" appears in the same context. But that would only support my point that the issue of circumcision is not the issue of Chapter 4. My reasoning is again that Abraham lived and died long before Moses. Abraham was not under law. Another issue would be even in Chapter 2, the major issue concerns heart circumcision. Of course heart circumcision is the work of God, and not mans works.
What is quoted in Genesis in Romans 4:3? Is Paul quoting a text on the law or circumcision? No! He is not! He quotes a passage from Genesis 15:6 that relates to the context of Chapter 4. He speaks of reconing or imputation of a foreign righteousness to Abraham.
(Again, please refer to the previous post of mine where I highlighted all the words for impute right within the context of Romans 4. That demonstrated what the context is really about.)
So then the issue Paul is presenting in Chapter 4 is one of imputing righteousness, not an issue of law. If Paul intended to us to import a concept of circumcision into the context as you are suggesting and a concept of law, he could have at least quoted Genesis 18 somewhere in the context of Chapter 4.
Neither does the rite of circumcision begin with the law (while it is continued under the law), nor is Paul quoting passages on circumcision in Romans 4.
Drew, please do not assume that you can prove your point by pointing to the law and saying "see, here is circumcision." That would prove nothing. If you read what I am saying carefully, I know that there is circumcision under the law, the point is that there is also circumcision before the giving of the law. Also, that the issue with Abraham in Romans 2:2ff is not one of circumcision, but imputation of righteousness (the basis of justification).

So then the statements in verse 4-5 are not about law either. OF course the works of the law would be the highest expression of works, and so you could include a concept of the works of the law in Pauls statements in verses 4-5. IF works save, the works of the law would save quicker then any other works. NEvertheless, Pauls statments in 4:1-5 are about any works. Works are the result of justification, not the cause.

Obviously the correctness of this depends on the resolution of the previous issue. I would urge all readers to be fair here. When Paul refers to "works" in chapter 2, is he referring to "good works" - even those aspects of the Torah which prescribe moral behaviour, or is he referring to the "works of Torah" in a different sense - in the sense of the works of Torah being a "badge" of covenant membership - demarcating "markers" of who is in the covenant people of God.

If one is going to approach this issue fairly, one needs to explore both possibilties, regardless of what tradition one is coming from. And I want to be clear - mondar has never simply countered my points by an explicit appeal to the authority of tradition. And that is good.

I think that Romans 3:30 suggests that Paul is indeed focussed on redressing the notion that both Gentile and Jew can be in the covenant family:

since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

The covenant family is not the issue of the context. I recognize that some might accept a concept that salvation is related to a concept of "covenant family." To the extent of my knowledge they do not use this context in such a fashion. In fact Romans 3:30 should be understood as just the opposite. We are justified by the blood of Christ no matter if we are in the covenant community (jewish) no outside the covenant community (gentile).

So it would not be unexpected that in basically the very next breath, Romans 4:2, Paul was referring to the works of Torah as specifically being a marker - an "identifier" - of who is in the covenant family. I will look into this more.

 

[Drew]

Drew, the rite of circumcision may have also been part of the later law, but that is not an issue when Abraham is mentioned. Abraham and circumcision preceeds the giving of the torah. The actual giving of the Law to Israel occurs in Exodus in the days of Moses. The rite of circumcision begins in Genesis 18 with Abraham. How could Abraham be under the Law when the Law was not yet given? Moses and the law is not in view in Romans 4.

I have already responded to this concern. The fact that Abraham was not under Law is precisely the point in relation to the claim that Torah is indeed in view in Romans 4:2. Abraham's justification could not be grounded in the ethnic specificities of Torah precisely because his justification precedes the giving of Torah. I have never stated that Abraham was under law at the time he was declared by Paul to have been justified. I think the timing issue actually supports my case. Since Abraham is declared to have been justified before circumcision / giving of Torah, this means, in the context of my overall argument, that Abraham was not justified by the ethnic specificities of Torah. This is consistent with the following from 3:30 where Paul makes it clear that justification is not just for the Jews.

since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you appear to be ascribing to me the view that Abraham was under Torah when he was declared to be justified. I would have to be nuts to hold that position, since it would obviously undercut my whole position.

 

[Drew]

We could look at Chapter 2. Their the word "Law" and "Circumcision" appears in the same context. But that would only support my point that the issue of circumcision is not the issue of Chapter 4. My reasoning is again that Abraham lived and died long before Moses. Abraham was not under law.

I cannot emphasize enough - I agree that Abraham was neither circumcized nor under Torah when he was justfied. These facts support my position. If Abraham were under Torah when he was declared to be justified then Paul could not have argued that Abraham was not justified by the works of Torah. It is precisely this separation in time that establishes Paul's point - Abraham's justification was not based on doing the works of Torah. If Abraham were under Torah at the time he was declared to be justified, the reader might imagine it was being under Torah that justifies him. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Now, if it can be shown that when Paul refers to "works" in 4:2, he is not intending to include circumcision under that term, then your objection gains considerable force. Can you give us non-question-begging reasons to believe this? In other words, how do you know that circumcision is not part of Torah? I would think that the "circumcision was ordered long before Moses was given the Ten Commandments plus other rules" argument is not, in and of itself very convincing.

Why? Because I see no a priori reason to think that the giving of Torah is a "one-time download" as it were. If you can make the case that it was, please do so. It would strengthen your argument considerably, although it would make Paul a rather schizophrenic writer since in 3:29 - 30, just a breath back of 4:2, he is obviously deeply concerned with a distinction between Jew and Gentile that he specifically grounds in the issue of circumcision.

For my part, I will, for the moment, refer to Paul's treatment of circumcision in Galatians 5:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

This seems to be a rather clear knitting together of circumcision together with Torah. I think the most natural reading of the above is that circimsion is seen by Paul as a sign of embracing Torah. And in verse 3, when he uses the term "law", Paul is obviously referring to Torah and not 'good works'. So it is rather clear that in verse 4, Paul criticizes attempts to be justified by keeping Torah - he sets Torah against grace, not 'good works' against grace, something that is entirely consistent with the position I am arguing for.

 

[Drew]

What is quoted in Genesis in Romans 4:3? Is Paul quoting a text on the law or circumcision? No! He is not! He quotes a passage from Genesis 15:6 that relates to the context of Chapter 4. He speaks of reconing or imputation of a foreign righteousness to Abraham.
(Again, please refer to the previous post of mine where I highlighted all the words for impute right within the context of Romans 4. That demonstrated what the context is really about.)
So then the issue Paul is presenting in Chapter 4 is one of imputing righteousness, not an issue of law.

Here is the previous post to which you refer (I have omitted the stuff in Greek):

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 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:

For starters, I agree that Romans 4 deals with issues of imputation of righteousness to the believer. I happen to believe that it is not Christ's own righteousness that is imputed to the believer, but rather the righteousness of the person who is acquitted in the lawcourt. When John Doe is justified in the lawcourt, he is simply declared to be "in the right". No other person's righteousness is ascrivbed to him.

It is indeed true that in Romans 4:3, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6:

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

How does the crediting of righteousness negate my assertion that Paul is talking about "works of Torah" in verse 2? Why can't Paul address both issues in this chapter? One way to look at what you write is that you are asserting that each chapter can only be about one subject. I know you cannot possibly mean this.

So I assume that what is under your objection is basically the following (my interpretation of the essence of your objection):

Since chapter 4 is so heavily dedicated to the issue of the imputation of righteousness to the believer, and since imputation of righteousness occurs in a specifically judicial setting where people are being dealt with in respect to their actions good or bad, we must conclude that in verse 4, Paul is referring to the 'good works' of the person and not those aspects of the Torah - circumcision, Sabbath, food laws, etc that demarcate the Jew from the Gentile. After all it is not reasonable to conceive of these things as acts with specific moral content - there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about circumcision or certain technicalities of Torah.

My response to such an objection, whether or not it is yours, is that the objector was "inverted" the metaphorical structure of what Paul is saying in Romans. In other words, this objector incorrectly views "justification" through a specifically lawcourt model when the more fundamental issue is covenantal. If justification were primarily a lawcourt issue, then the objection would have some force since numerous references to "imputed / reckoned" righteousness must fold back and inform our interpretation of verse 2 to the effect that moral good works are there in view.

I think the more correct way to view the matter of justification is primarily in terms of covenant membership and only secondarily in terms of the lawcourt model. I cannot defend this assertion in a couple of sentences, I would claim that an argument in support of my position here (really NT Wright's ideas) are smeared out across many of my posts in this thread.

For the present, I will merely suggest that the entire story of Israel is more about her status as God's "elected" covenant people than it is about more abstract issues of moral right and wrong. I would claim that the Jewish context from which Paul came is one where the Jews focused on their special status as God's chosen people. They would see justification more in terms of their being publically proclaimed to be such in front of their pagan neighbours than in terms of a lawcourt issue of being found guilty or not guilty of sin. Of course, I am not suggesting that this is a black and white issue.

One interesting thing, I think, about all this is that we need to be careful about making sure that we approach Paul with an understanding of what questions he is asking. I suggest that he is centrally concerned with who the real family of God is, and not with the issue of justification by faith as specifically set against justification by works. If we read the text already committed to certain set of assumed questions, we will obviously "see" what he writes as answers to those questions.

NT Wright claims that history shows that the entire concern with Pelegianism is a phenomena that was not around at the time of Paul, that it entered the thinking of the church later. Obviously, I do not have information to corroborate such a claim at my fingertips.

 

[mondar]

For starters, I agree that Romans 4 deals with issues of imputation of righteousness to the believer. I happen to believe that it is not Christ's own righteousness that is imputed to the believer, but rather the righteousness of the person who is acquitted in the lawcourt. When John Doe is justified in the lawcourt, he is simply declared to be "in the right". No other person's righteousness is ascrivbed to him.

What you state above is an impossible definition for the term impute (logozemai). In fact your definition is an oxymoron. The definition you give is the exact opposite of the meaning of the term impute.

You say you believe in imputation, then redefine the word to mean something it cannot mean. In fact I do not believe your definition is within the range of the meaning of the term "logozemai." If you look up the term in Thayers lexicon, you will read it is an accounting term. We would never need an imputation of righteousness if we are already righteous.

In accounting, if we are righteous, that righteousness is already on our side of the ledger. In imputation, the value of righteousness is transfered to our account. If it is "transfered" it cannot have been there bfore the transfer.

If we are already righteous, then it nothing is imputed or transfered to us. The term in the context of Romans 4 only fits if it is Christ's righteousness that is imputed.

This is not a small matter. To deny the proper nature of imputation would mean you must deny several cardinal and essentual doctrines of Christianity. The substitutionary atonement is being denied also in your doctrine. In essence, we believe in two distinct and irreconcilable concepts of atonement. But this is not the issue, it is the fact that you are distorting the term "impute."

It is indeed true that in Romans 4:3, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6:

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

How does the crediting of righteousness negate my assertion that Paul is talking about "works of Torah" in verse 2? Why can't Paul address both issues in this chapter? One way to look at what you write is that you are asserting that each chapter can only be about one subject. I know you cannot possibly mean this.

I have asserted several times that the issue of all men being under the penalty and power of sin is asserted in 1:18-3:20. A concept of the law would related to the Jew in that section of scripture. The gentiles are guilty in chapter 1, and the Jew in 2-3:20.

In your interpretation, you have the awkward situation of explaining why you place Law in the time of Abraham. Of course such a chronology is impossible. As I said, the law did not come until Moses. The law was given to Israel at Sinai when Moses ascended the mount. Can you show me the giving of the law in the life of Abraham?

Now you attempt to do some razzle dazzle and do a back flip with the term circumcision and attempt to make the term circumcision and Law a synonym. In fact, even 3:30 does not refer to Abraham or his time at all.

So I assume that what is under your objection is basically the following (my interpretation of the essence of your objection):

Since chapter 4 is so heavily dedicated to the issue of the imputation of righteousness to the believer, and since imputation of righteousness occurs in a specifically judicial setting where people are being dealt with in respect to their actions good or bad, we must conclude that in verse 4, Paul is referring to the 'good works' of the person and not those aspects of the Torah - circumcision, Sabbath, food laws, etc that demarcate the Jew from the Gentile. After all it is not reasonable to conceive of these things as acts with specific moral content - there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about circumcision or certain technicalities of Torah.

My response to such an objection, whether or not it is yours, is that the objector was "inverted" the metaphorical structure of what Paul is saying in Romans. In other words, this objector incorrectly views "justification" through a specifically lawcourt model when the more fundamental issue is covenantal. If justification were primarily a lawcourt issue, then the objection would have some force since numerous references to "imputed / reckoned" righteousness must fold back and inform our interpretation of verse 2 to the effect that moral good works are there in view.

I think the more correct way to view the matter of justification is primarily in terms of covenant membership and only secondarily in terms of the lawcourt model. I cannot defend this assertion in a couple of sentences, I would claim that an argument in support of my position here (really NT Wright's ideas) are smeared out across many of my posts in this thread.

....matreial snipped.

OK, so you are denying forensic justification. The concept of forensic justification is complex because the term "justify" has nuances of meaning depending on the context. In the book of Romans, the forensic nuance of the term can be seen clearly in Romans 8:33-34. Notice how the term "justify" is surounded by other courtroom terms.

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Notice in justificaiton in this context "Charges" are made, also "condemnation" is avoided by our defense lawyer (the intercessor).

No more direct statement could be made then Romans 5:9 concerning the basis of justification.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.

We are not justified by our won works in any way. We are justified by the words and shed blood of Christ imputed righteousness to the elect.

This is why Romans 4:4-5 contrast faith and works. In justification, our works only bring debt. Faith brings justification.

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.

In fact there is no justification for the person who works. There is only more debt. In that text works is related to debt. Works brings debt. Not even NT Wright can change that.

 

[mondar]

I cannot emphasize enough - I agree that Abraham was neither circumcized nor under Torah when he was justfied. These facts support my position. If Abraham were under Torah when he was declared to be justified then Paul could not have argued that Abraham was not justified by the works of Torah. It is precisely this separation in time that establishes Paul's point - Abraham's justification was not based on doing the works of Torah. If Abraham were under Torah at the time he was declared to be justified, the reader might imagine it was being under Torah that justifies him. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Well, I am glad to hear you say that neither the law, nor circumcision is in view in Romans 4:2. Yet, I still see a weird reasoning in your words. You seem to be reasoning because a concept of Law and circumcision is not in Abrahams life, then that somehow means the issue is the law (or lack of law). Since the term law is neither implied nor directly stated, the issue is just simply not in the context.

of course this means that the term "works" in 4:4 should be taken at face value. It is talking about any human works of merit.
Drew, there is a major burden of proof that rests on you here. To say that the concept of Law is primary when the word does not exist in the context, you are going to need a lot of proof. To say that this is about covenant family without the word "hesid" or some OT quote concerning that word, is going to require a lot of proof. All I see so far is these remote word associations. What you need is a string of OT quotes with Hesid in it, or the term law to appear several times with statements of denial or affirmation about how it existed in Abrahams life. Nothing like this occurs in the context.

Now, if it can be shown that when Paul refers to "works" in 4:2, he is not intending to include circumcision under that term, then your objection gains considerable force. Can you give us non-question-begging reasons to believe this? In other words, how do you know that circumcision is not part of Torah? I would think that the "circumcision was ordered long before Moses was given the Ten Commandments plus other rules" argument is not, in and of itself very convincing.

Why? Because I see no a priori reason to think that the giving of Torah is a "one-time download" as it were. If you can make the case that it was, please do so.

Drew, Moses ascended Sinai and spoke to God and received the Law. It is often called the law of Moses. Now its true that he went up a second time for the tablets, but the Law was given at a certain time in history. That law code related to Israel.

Now I assume that when you say some of the things you are saying that you want to blurr the term "Law" and make it non-Mosaic. Either you must make Moses some life force that extends throughout the ages, or imaging some non-biblical definition for the term Law in the context of Romans. Rather then go to such bizarre lengthss of distortion concepts and terms, why not just admit that justification is by faith alone.

It would strengthen your argument considerably, although it would make Paul a rather schizophrenic writer since in 3:29 - 30, just a breath back of 4:2, he is obviously deeply concerned with a distinction between Jew and Gentile that he specifically grounds in the issue of circumcision.

For my part, I will, for the moment, refer to Paul's treatment of circumcision in Galatians 5:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

This seems to be a rather clear knitting together of circumcision together with Torah. I think the most natural reading of the above is that circimsion is seen by Paul as a sign of embracing Torah. And in verse 3, when he uses the term "law", Paul is obviously referring to Torah and not 'good works'. So it is rather clear that in verse 4, Paul criticizes attempts to be justified by keeping Torah - he sets Torah against grace, not 'good works' against grace, something that is entirely consistent with the position I am arguing for.

Drew, I knew this faulty reasoning that you make was going to come. I honestly saw it a mile away.

No honest bible student will think that the law and circumcision are synonyms.

Now let me post a reference when circumcision began...
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed.

Now if they are synonyms, then the law must be seen in Genesis 17:12 also. Was the Mosaic Law given in Genesis 17? Now you might appeal to biblically illiterate people with that sort of thinking and talk, but most simple SS teachers know the law is not in Gensis 17, or anywhere in Genesis.

Now I also see it coming that you are admitting that the law was not in the life of Abraham, but then you will turn right around and still insist that the law and circumcision are the same thing. You seem to be able to draw conclusions against all evidence, and it still makes perfect sense in your mind somehow.

 

[Drew]

What you state above is an impossible definition for the term impute (logozemai). In fact your definition is an oxymoron. The definition you give is the exact opposite of the meaning of the term impute.

You say you believe in imputation, then redefine the word to mean something it cannot mean. In fact I do not believe your definition is within the range of the meaning of the term "logozemai." If you look up the term in Thayers lexicon, you will read it is an accounting term. We would never need an imputation of righteousness if we are already righteous.

In accounting, if we are righteous, that righteousness is already on our side of the ledger. In imputation, the value of righteousness is transfered to our account. If it is "transfered" it cannot have been there bfore the transfer.

If we are already righteous, then it nothing is imputed or transfered to us. The term in the context of Romans 4 only fits if it is Christ's righteousness that is imputed.

I think you are using circular reasoning here. And specifically, you seem to argue that the word "logozemai" must involve specifically the following: the transfer of a specific quantity from a source to a receiver. I strongly doubt that the term is really so specific in its denotation.

In fact we know from this very text that imputation can occur without the quantity being imputed having to be transferred from a source agent to a receiving agent. Paul is clear in Romans 4:8 that sin can imputed:

Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin

Please do not try to argue that imputation always involves the transfer of some quantity such as righteousness (or even sin for that matter) from one party to a different second party. Paul's use of the term here rules that out:

Can God "impute" sin to a man? Yes he can - Paul clearly uses "logezemai" in this sense in the above verse and implies unambiguously that such imputation can indeed occur. If it could not occur, then the statement makes no sense. Why say a person is blessed because something that is impossible to happen will not, in fact, happen. Can I, as a male, be described as being blessed because I will not get ovarian cancer? Of course not. It is only if it is possible to get the disease that it can be said that I am blessed to not get it.

So God can indeed impute sin, although there are those to whom He does not impute sin as the verse states. Whose sin could be imputed to, for example, Fred? God's sin? Obviously not. Jane's sin? Obviously non-sensical. Fred's own sin? Yes indeed. But then your entire argument fails because this is not a transfer from one person to another as you claim the word impute must mean.

So your argument does not work, unless you can explain how the imputation of sin to a person involves the transfer of somebody else's sin to the receiving party.

Remember, you have stated:

If it is "transfered" it cannot have been there bfore the transfer.

In the case where the possibilty of God imputing sin to Fred is raised in verse 8, precisely what are the 2 sides of this accounting ledger? The "receiver" side is obviously Fred.

Who is on the "imputer" side of the ledger when sin is imputed to Fred, as verse 8 obviously shows that it can be?

 

[Drew]

In your interpretation, you have the awkward situation of explaining why you place Law in the time of Abraham. Of course such a chronology is impossible. As I said, the law did not come until Moses. The law was given to Israel at Sinai when Moses ascended the mount. Can you show me the giving of the law in the life of Abraham?

Now you attempt to do some razzle dazzle and do a back flip with the term circumcision and attempt to make the term circumcision and Law a synonym. In fact, even 3:30 does not refer to Abraham or his time at all.

First, the only evidence that you have presented to the effect that circumcision is not a "work of Torah" is an essentially question-begging claim about chronology. The reader will know that the fact that "circumcision" came first and the "10 commandments and the rest came later" does not really show that circumcision is not part of "Torah". How do you know that Torah isn't considered to be the "whole package" even if parts of it are given first and other parts later.

Paul, in Galatians, says this:

And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

I think that the sense of this translation (NASB) strongly suggests that Paul thinks circumcision is part of Torah. You claim circumcision is not part of Torah. Why would Paul then use the word "whole"? The use of the word "whole" in this sentence only makes sense if the writer believes circumcision is part of Torah. Paul is saying something like:

"Any man who takes one mouthful of jello is obligated to eat the whole bowl of jello"

Clearly, the word "whole" denotes that a "part-of" relationship exists between circumcision and Torah. Would someone ever say something like:

"Any man who takes one mouthful of jello is obligated to eat the whole bowl of soup"

No they would not. The proper way of expressing the situation where the "part-of" relationship does not exist would be this:

"Any man who takes one mouthful of jello is obligated to eat the (***note the absence of "whole") bowl of soup"

I think this a compelling argument in and of itself. But lets look at more of the text:

3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to (H)keep the whole Law.

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have (I)fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are (J)waiting for the hope of righteousness.

6For in (K)Christ Jesus (L)neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but (M)faith working through love.

What do you think Paul means by "law" in verse 4 - 'good works' or Torah? I think that he must mean Torah since he so obviously is referring to Torah in verse 3. But if he is referring to Torah in verse 4, he is saying that Torah does not justify. But I thought you claimed that Paul is of the mind that it is 'good works' that do not justify.

This text clearly has Paul setting "justification by faith / grace" against justification by keeping Torah and not against justification by good works.