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

[Drew]

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.

This is a misreprsentation of my position. Unless I had some kind of seizure I never ever ever said that "neither the law, nor circumcision is in view in Romans 4:2".

I have repeatedly claimed, to the point no doubt of annoying people, that the "works" in 4:2 are indeed the "works of Torah".

The extract from my post above in no way implies the view that you ascribe to me.

 

[Drew]

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

I agree. Who has said that the law and circumcision are synonyms? Let me at him. I will be happy to take up the whoopin' stick after you are done with him.

Why must you continually misrepresent me mondar? Please, properly distinguish between a "synonym" relationship from a "part of" relationship?

You incorrectly ascribe to me a view that I do not hold - that circumcision and the Law are synonyms - and then you leverage that misrepresentation into a claim that is of course incorrect.

 

[Drew]

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.

I do not mind being ascribed the same distorted view that Paul himself held:

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

This text is almost a slam-dunk that Paul considered circumcision to be a subset (part of) Torah.

Which makes more sense:

A. Anyone who invites Roger Clemens (a member of the Yankees) to the White House is under obligation to invite the whole Yankees team?

B. Anyone who invites Roger Clemens to the White House is under obligation to invite the whole Red Sox team?

Paul obviously considered circumcision to be part of Torah - not all of Torah, but part of it. And that is all that is needed to sustain my argument about Romans 4.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew, I believe you are doing a dis-service to the "study" of these two verses when you are not taking them in the complete context. While you speak considerable time looking at the verses prior to Romans 4:4-5, I cannot understand why you have not continued with the proper context of the passage from verses 6-16.

the Key verses in understanding Romans 4:1-16 are:

verses 7-9: "Blessed are those who lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised? For we say, "Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."

verse 13-14: "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified."

Perhaps Drew, you should read Scripture and not NT Wright.

 

[RadicalReformer]

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.

I do not mind being ascribed the same distorted view that Paul himself held:

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

This text is almost a slam-dunk that Paul considered circumcision to be a subset (part of) Torah.

Which makes more sense:

A. Anyone who invites Roger Clemens (a member of the Yankees) to the White House is under obligation to invite the whole Yankees team?

B. Anyone who invites Roger Clemens to the White House is under obligation to invite the whole Red Sox team?

Paul obviously considered circumcision to be part of Torah - not all of Torah, but part of it. And that is all that is needed to sustain my argument about Romans 4.

Drew, do you like to search for verses that APPEAR to support you? Because when you do, you negate the context of the verses - you are plucking them right out of the context. It would also be helpful if you are going to pluck them to provide the reference, so others can view it in the proper context. Let's take the verse you plucked above, in comes from Gal. 5:3 - however you neglected the context of verse 2 and verse 4.

Galatians 5:2-4

Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I believe you are doing a dis-service to the "study" of these two verses when you are not taking them in the complete context. While you speak considerable time looking at the verses prior to Romans 4:4-5, I cannot understand why you have not continued with the proper context of the passage from verses 6-16.

If one has read my arguments , one will indeed know that this statement is false. I have clearly addressed the 6-16 passage. Seriously, why do you guys misrepresent the facts? If nowhere else, I deal with this entire section in my post of Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:47 pm. It is true that I could have spent more time on that section, but I did address it all.

the Key verses in understanding Romans 4:1-16 are:

verses 7-9: "Blessed are those who lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised? For we say, "Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."

verse 13-14: "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified."

Perhaps Drew, you should read Scripture and not NT Wright.

Thank you for filling in my case for me.

In verses 7-9 Paul once more shows that Paul is addressing the reader's inclination to see justification as falling along the Jew-Gentile divide - so he says "no" in respect to that claim. This only supports my case that what Paul is setting against "true faith" is not "moral good works" but rather "doing the works of Torah that mark out the Jew from the Gentile".

In verses 13-14, Paul says the heirs of the covenant promise of justification are not heirs in virtue of being under Torah. Are you going to suggest "law" here is "good works"? Please, go ahead and try that. Once again, this block of text also supports my case.

How is it that you see these texts as undermining my position?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - there is NO Jew/Gentile divide.

 

[Drew]

[Drew, do you like to search for verses that APPEAR to support you?

You will get no argument for me here. The verse I refer to does indeed appear to support my position, and rather strongly, I would suggest. Let's see if the context you describe undermines my position.

Galatians 5:2-4

Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

How does this undermine my take on verse 3? Please be specific.

I think verses 2 and 4 actually support my position.

Verse 2 addresses the mistaken belief that getting circumcised is enough to be justified. What is getting circumcized all about? It is about getting the mark that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile. Paul has been continually arguing in Romans, not least in Romans 4:2, that "being Jewish", "being of the circumcision", "doing the works of Torah" do not justify. And that has been my whole point - that Paul is not arguing against justification by doing 'good works', he is arguing against justification by doing the works of Torah.

Verse 4 once again shows that Paul is critiquing the belief that one can be justified by Torah (law).

I am mystified - it seems that an analysis of the context of 2-4 only strengthens my argument.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - Abraham's faith was CREDITED to him as rightouesness PRIOR.

Verses 7 and 8 are quoting from the Psalms.

Where do you get this notion of "doing the works of Torah" for Abraham?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew, Paul is not saying in verse 4 that "doing the works of the Torah" is a "good thing" - he says that if you go that route you have FALLEN FROM GRACE!

Who has been severed from Christ? Those who are seeking to be justified by the law. They have been severed from Christ and have fallen from Grace.

 

[Drew]

Drew - there is NO Jew/Gentile divide.

You will not win this one RR - Paul repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly addresses a perceived Jew-Gentile divide in his audience. One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, Paul wrote Romans is to urge unity between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers in the church at Rome. If I listed all the instances in Romans (if not Galatians) where Paul addresses a perceived Jew-Gentile distinction, the post will get too long.

In a sense you are right - Paul's argument is that there is no such divide in Christ. But in order to sell this, he has to argue the point. And that is one of the things he does in Romans. So let's be clear: while Paul himself has concluded that the true family of God does not have a Jew-Gentile split, he worries that his readers will think otherwise. That is why he bends over backwards to make the case that a common faith in Jesus is what justifies and not "ethnicity", possession of Torah, or doing the works of Torah that mark out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile.

 

[Drew]

Drew - Abraham's faith was CREDITED to him as rightouesness PRIOR.

Verses 7 and 8 are quoting from the Psalms.

Where do you get this notion of "doing the works of Torah" for Abraham?

I have already dealt with this repeatedly. Paul's argument is that since Abraham was justified before he came under the dictates of Torah, one cannot conclude that he was justified by doing Torah.

 

[Drew]

Drew, Paul is not saying in verse 4 that "doing the works of the Torah" is a "good thing" - he says that if you go that route you have FALLEN FROM GRACE!

Who has been severed from Christ? Those who are seeking to be justified by the law. They have been severed from Christ and have fallen from Grace.

In case other readers are confused, RR is referring to verse 4 of Galatians 5 (I believe).

I absolutely agree with your statement here, RR. I endorse it 100 %. Did you think I would have any disagreement? Why? Did I ever say that "doing the works of Torah" justifies anybody? Again, if you find the person who believes such a thing, I'll continue the beatin's after you are done.

Do you think that my position is one where I believe that one is justified by following the rules of Torah? When I have said such a thing?

There is a subtlety to the position to which I subscribe (again, I credit NT Wright with the basic position) that might make it seem that I am saying we are justified by doing the works of Torah, but I will not get into that unless specifically asked.

 

[unred typo]

For those of you who have been actually reading these excellent posts by Drew, and the ensuing discussions, you can skip this one. For those just joining, this should bring you up to this point, but the important stuff has been omitted in hopes that you will take the time to actually read Drew’s work before continuing. He has nailed the topic and in great detail, provided the necessary scriptural backup to his view. It’s well worth the time invested if you value truths that will certainly make an impact on your eternal destiny. This interuption was inspired by these comments made by RadicalReformer:

Drew, do you like to search for verses that APPEAR to support you? Because when you do, you negate the context of the verses - you are plucking them right out of the context. It would also be helpful if you are going to pluck them to provide the reference, so others can view it in the proper context. Let's take the verse you plucked above, in comes from Gal. 5:3 - however you neglected the context of verse 2 and verse 4.

Perhaps you would do well to at least read Drew’s posts explaining, in context, not just the 2 verses of chapter 4 but starting all the way back in chapter 3 with references to significant verses in chapter 2. I don’t have the Cliff’s notes but he did a blow by blow exposition of chapter 3 and I have no doubt, he planned to draw chapter 4 into chapter 5 as far as the topic of law, grace and works extends.

Here is a sketchy synopsis of the thread so far, for those who came in late and might believe RadicalReformer‘s claims:

Page one:
Drew began with: “Starting with Romans 3:20â€Â

Page two:
Drew continues after answering all objections to his thesis: “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.â€Â

*explanation of each verse separately*

Drew’s warning to those who thought this was going to be a 2 verse read: “And now I finally get to the point of this whole thread - arguing against the view that in Romans 4:4-5, Paul discounts the role of "good works" in respect to justification. I will still need multiple posts to fill this out, however.â€Â

Drew BEGINS with verse one:

Therefore, and this is a lynchpin of the position I am advocating, the vague (at least as a sentence unto itself) question of Romans 4:1:

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

can be seen from context to really be this more specific question:

1What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?

Paul is anticipating the position that his inclusion of Jew and Gentile in the covenant family, as per just a couple of sentences back in Romans 3:30, will cause people to wonder whether all Christians - Jew and Gentile alike - are to be considered part of the "fleshly" family of Abraham.

And Paul will go on to answer this with a resounding "no".

And this is all relevant to the purpose of my whole argument precisely because the question of Romans 4:1 establishes the interpretive framework by which we read Romans 4:4-5. And the reader will probably see where I am going. When Paul talks of works in Romans 4:2, he is not talking about "good works", but rather the elements of Torah that distinguishes the Jew from his pagan (Gentile) neighbour. We will see that Romans 4:4-5 serves as a metaphor in support of his argument. Paul is not suggesting that "good works" do not serve a role in our justification.

*Drew answers some static from Mondar*
*enter RadicalReformer, who asks who is Drew to question Orthodoxy*
*static between unred and Rad*
Drew skips ahead to focus briefly on verses 16-17 of chapter 4 in answer to Mondar’s question, “If it is not an OT proof the why would Paul quote Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3?â€Â

Mondar bounces ahead to 4:3-10, with a concern about the word "logozemai" (imputed) being the main issue of Romans 4. Drew gives a brief explanation and explains that he plans “to address this issue in more detail, explaining why it is that Paul never argues that the righteousness of Christ is imputed or ascribed to the believer.â€Â

Page 3:
*more unrelated static between unred and Rad*

Drew proceeds with chapter 4, making it all the way to verse 7, with plans of returning to 4-5 in detail. He then touches on verses 16-17: “Paul is clearly addressing the relation of the ethnic Jew to the Gentile in the context of the characterising the covenant family - he is not arguing against "Pelegianism" (or however that is spelled). And finally the answer of "no" to the question of verse 1 is driven home in 16 - 17:â€Â

*more static between unred and Rad over the meaning of ‘orthodox‘*

Drew ‘plays through’ by returning to verse 2 and reexamining it in the context of the chapter through verse 10.

Then Drew goes back to give context from chapter 1:

“Before addressing verses 4 and 5 in Romans 4, I would like to give a higher level view of what I believe Paul's "big picture" theology is, seen specifically from where we are right now. This excursion will probably require muliple posts.

Paul has just argued that Abraham is the father of the true covenant people "by grace" and not "according to the flesh".

I would like to return to 1:18-25 and compare ith with 4:18-21, which I believes "echoes" the passage from Romans 1.

Here is the material from Romans 1:18-25:â€Â

*more detailed study*

*The next post begins: “This post will probably only make sense if you read my immediately preceding post.†(Some of us actually did read the previous post, btw. ) *

*Page 3 ends with more static from Rad to unred, not about the topic*

*Page 4 begins with Drew’s exegesis of verses 4-5 of chapter 4, as was promised*

*RadicalReformer chooses to reword and resubmit his question from, “Drew, who are you to question orthodoxy?†to “What is your intent? Why do you wish to "challenge the traditional view"?â€Â
and then he adds this bizarre comment: “It would appear, that you already had an idea of what you wanted Romans 4:4-5 to say, and have taken the readers on a four page thread to "prove" what you already believed.†(side note: well, duh. He didn’t write it to prove it to HIMSELF. Are you beating him up for being thorough or for actually knowing the material he was presenting before he wrote his OP? ) *

*more static from Rad to Drew *
*more static between unred and Rad*
*more static from Rad to Drew *
*more static between unred and Rad*
*side related discussion between unred and Mondar*
*Drew’s pleas to return to text*

Page 5
*Drew and Mondar actually discuss the text 4-5*
*unred answers Mondar‘s previous post, pg 3*
*RadicalReformer makes an issue about the origin of Drew’s ideas*
*unred’s defence of Drew ends discussion/allegations by Rad*
*Drew continues dealing with Mondar’s claims w Rom 4:2, which he had already answered before*

Page 6
*Mondar and Drew discuss the topic without interuption*
*Drew quotes Paul, in Galatians, and writes: “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†to show specifically that Paul considers circumcision part of the whole law, not to take the reader on a side study of Galatians, but he does so briefly, again giving the verse numbers but failing to mention the chapter, possibly assuming the reader knows his Bible well enough to go to chapter 5, or as an oversight*

*Drew corrects some distortions of his view claimed by Mondar*

*RadicalReformer is back to make more unsupported allegations, starting with the patently ridiculous claim that he has not done a complete study of the context( ! ) saying,

“Drew, I believe you are doing a dis-service to the "study" of these two verses when you are not taking them in the complete context.â€Â

and he also reprimands Drew for not giving the complete reference to the Galatians verse which Drew had just quoted to Mondar*

*Drew patiently corrects Rad*
*Rad continues to make uninformed, unsubstantiated claims*
*Drew patiently corrects Rad*
*Rad continues to make arguments that have been already discussed as if he hasn’t yet bothered to read the OP, or previous arguments on the following 2 pages, or the 5 pages since he joined the discussion.
Page 7
*Drew continues patiently correcting and reasserting his points made over the last 6 pages, which Rad obviously hasn’t read yet.*

Please continue. I KNOW Rad doesn't want to hear what I would like to say at this point.... :-D

 

[Drew]

Greetings all:

I do appreciate any support that I do receive. And though I sometimes believe my views are misrepresented by those of an opposing position, their contributions are invaluable as well.

In the interests of collegiality, I will say that both RR (especially recently) and mondar are engaging the actual argument. For example, mondar's objection (I hope I am representing him fairly) that circumcision is not really "part" of Torah is an important line to follow up. If the scriptural (and historical) record shows that Paul considered circumcision to not be part of Torah, then my argument (actually NT Wright's argument as understood by me and slightly 'added onto' by me) is weakened. I am note sure it is fatally wounded, but it is indeed weakened.

I hope that the reader will take me at my word when I say that I spent > 20 years holding to the "standard" reformed position on this matter. My evolving belief that "works of the Spirit" are needed for justification is not something I sought to discover. It is just something that happened as the result of reading NT Wright. I would feel more comfortable if I could believe that my justification was sealed and over with as the result of a simple one time act of acceptance and belief. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this.

At the end of the day, all we have is the text, some relevant historical / cultural knowledge and, our God-given powers of rational thinking and, hopefully, a desire to let the text itself speak to us. The various tradictions we come from, while no doubt helpful to us, do not have the same authority as the text themselves.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Greetings all:

I do appreciate any support that I do receive. And though I sometimes believe my views are misrepresented by those of an opposing position, their contributions are invaluable as well.

In the interests of collegiality, I will say that both RR (especially recently) and mondar are engaging the actual argument. For example, mondar's objection (I hope I am representing him fairly) that circumcision is not really "part" of Torah is an important line to follow up. If the scriptural (and historical) record shows that Paul considered circumcision to not be part of Torah, then my argument (actually NT Wright's argument as understood by me and slightly 'added onto' by me) is weakened. I am note sure it is fatally wounded, but it is indeed weakened.

I hope that the reader will take me at my word when I say that I spent > 20 years holding to the "standard" reformed position on this matter. My evolving belief that "works of the Spirit" are needed for justification is not something I sought to discover. It is just something that happened as the result of reading NT Wright. I would feel more comfortable if I could believe that my justification was sealed and over with as the result of a simple one time act of acceptance and belief. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this.

At the end of the day, all we have is the text, some relevant historical / cultural knowledge and, our God-given powers of rational thinking and, hopefully, a desire to let the text itself speak to us. The various tradictions we come from, while no doubt helpful to us, do not have the same authority as the text themselves.

My concern Drew is that you did not come to this conclusions upon reading Scripture, but as you said, and I quote: "It is just something that happened as the result of reading NT Wright."

This is troubling to me, because nowhere do I read credit given to the Holy Spirit, guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understandings of the words that HE wrote.

And while perhaps well meaning, the interruptions by unred do not help further the discussion. It appears that he sees my questions as attacks on you, Drew, but they were not... It appears, Drew that you place much weight and value in the writings of NT Wright.

The question is why? Why do you value his intreptations? How is it that you know, without a doubt, that he possess the Truth? It is clear that you value "rational and logical thought" - forgive me, but I cannot help but think of Spock! I return you to the question that I poised earlier.. is an ex nihilo creation, logical? Is the Cross, logical? In fact, Paul calls the Cross a stumbling block to the "learned".

 

[Drew]

The question is why? Why do you value his intreptations? How is it that you know, without a doubt, that he possess the Truth? It is clear that you value "rational and logical thought" - forgive me, but I cannot help but think of Spock! I return you to the question that I poised earlier.. is an ex nihilo creation, logical? Is the Cross, logical? In fact, Paul calls the Cross a stumbling block to the "learned".

This is really a non-issue. How does anyone get at the truth in Scriptures? They learn to read, they learn what words mean, they learn how sentences work, they learn about literary devices such as metaphor, they learn about principles of consistency, principles of logic, principles of rational argument, historical information, cultural information, and on and on. Its not magic - it is all very down to earth hard work.

True, we need to adopt an attitude of submission to the Holy Spirit in our reading. But unless you have some special gift that I do not, I do not wake up in the morning with a complete understanding of some doctrine "magically" beamed into my head. Mere mortals like me have to go the plain old route of reading and thinking, reading and thinking.

Does this push the Spririt out of the picture? No it does not. We trust that the Spirit guides us in what are the very real and unavoidable tasks of figuring out the Scriptures.

I'll take the "Spock" reference as a compliment, even if it was not intended as such. There is no short-cut to the truth for me. Perhaps you are gifted with a magical power to discern truth that bypasses your intellectual faculties. All the more power to you. I can only go with what God gives me.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - God gives us the Holy Spirit. What is the purpose of the Holy Spirit? What is the Role of the Holy Spirit? To put it another way, what is His job?

His job is to guide us and direct us to the Truth. Yes, we need to read the Scriptures, of course we need to understand metaphors, language, sentance structure. The Holy Bible is a book, and so much more. It is "alive".

It can speak to us - the Holy Spirit can guide our understanding - this is not "magic", and I resent the implication.

How does Paul direct the believers to understand Scripture? To read NT Wright? No - the early believers did not have NT Wright, or Luther, or any other Theologian. Does that mean the early believers did not understand?

The Scriptures tell us that God gives the gift to some to be teachers - however, that does not absolve the individual believers to "test the Spirits".

On one hand we have those who approach Scripture with too much individuality, and on the other hand those who allow "magesteriums" to dictate for them what to believe. Both extremes are unBiblical.

I cannot help but wonder why for at least the second time you have not addressed the "illogical" notion of ex-nihilo and The Cross. Are these "logical"?

The Greeks loved knowledge, rational thought, and logic - yet Christ said all we need is the understanding of a child!

How does anyone get to the Truth of the Scriptures? By talking to the Author of the Scriptures!

 

[Drew]

I cannot help but wonder why for at least the second time you have not addressed the "illogical" notion of ex-nihilo and The Cross. Are these "logical"?

I have made my points about how I believe we get at the truth in Scripture and I am not willing to continue discussing this issue.

I will answer your questions as follows, but do not intend to get into the nature of how we get at truth, at least not in this thread - I do not want to get too far off the issue of what Romans 4 is about:

1. Creation ex nihilo: it is mysterious but in no way contradict principles of logic;

2. The cross: in hindsight, it makes perfect sense, granting, again, certain elements of mystery that are not, in and of themselves, illogical.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew:
In the interests of collegiality, I will say that both RR (especially recently) and mondar are engaging the actual argument.

So much for collegiality. I’m not up to your level in many ways, Drew, but I know if you push a cat off a roof, he may land on his feet, but he’s not going to fly. I believe you have overestimated the sincerity of your opponents in the search for truth. I think instead of being so logical, you should just make up the most foolish theology imaginable, and then quote 1 Corinthians 1:27 until the opponent is reduced to drooling out expletives, and then announce that they are obviously demon possessed.

Actually, I do have to agree with RadicalReformer. The image of Spock does come to mind when I read your posts. :-D