Romans 8

by confused and lost 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Romans 16:22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

    Doug Mason,

    There is another reason why the definite article is not always present in the text where we feel it should be. It is not like Paul was writing this letter himself and taking care that the grammar precisely reflected what he meant. Tertius wrote this letter for him as shown above. And when Paul used words such as Law and Tertius heard him say it, would he automatically pen "the Law"? Did Tertius interpret what Paul was saying and maintain grammatical precision or did he simply write down what he literally heard Paul say? So grammar is not the benchmark that many make of it. We have to consider also the history, the problems being resolved and other factors that tell us what was really meant by a text.

    Joseph

  • R.Crusoe
    R.Crusoe

    Jesus comes in 3rd on the list of Greek divinities!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj6tQNWuGJ8&feature=related

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Joseph,

    Thank you for your stimulating thoughts. As a result, I sat down and wrote an analysis of the context on Rom 4, which I have reproduced below.

    For convenience, I put it on my web site at:

    http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/righteousness_without_law.pdf

    I saw your thoughts about the potential for discrepancies between Paul and his scribes. I think this has too many assumptions to hurdle, and it opens the potential for people discarding the bits and pieces they don't like or agree with. It would also assume that the scribe at the time was unaware of Paul's teachings on a particular subject, and that they did not discuss the material before it was sent out. It is clear that Paul personally wrote very litle, possibly because of poor eyesight (thorn in the flesh?).

    I would be very cautious about travelling down that road. Besides, the exegesis I provide below confirms the thoughts I previously proposed regarding the anarthrous noun (nomos without an article in this instance) which as you say has implications at other places.

    Doug

    =====================================================

    Righteousness from God, apart from law

    At Romans 1:16, Paul declares that the gospel says everyone is saved on the same basis – by believing.

    I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. (Romans 1:16. NIV used throughout)

    Paul immediately reaffirms his position that righteousness is wholly and completely dependent on faith.

    For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (Romans 1:17)

    At Romans 3:9ff, Paul argues that no one – neither Jew nor Gentile – is righteous, that all are under the power of Sin.

    Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. (Romans 3:9)

    In view of this, Paul argues at Romans 3:20 that no one will be declared righteous by observing “the” law.

    No one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the law. (Romans 3:20)

    After he condemned all as being under the power of Sin and unable to be declared righteous through observing “the” law, Paul returns to the “gospel”, since it provides the solution. At Romans 3:21, Paul declares that righteousness comes from God quite apart from “law”, and that the “Law and Prophets” (the Hebrew Scriptures) do preach this message.

    But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (Romans 3:21)

    Paul goes on to explain that righteousness comes from God on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ.

    This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all … are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. … A man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Romans 3:22-25, 28)

    Paul then shows that “righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ” upholds the teachings of “the law”.

    Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)

    In the verses that follow, Paul shows that by “the law”, this time he means all of the Hebrew Scriptures. He answered his question with the examples of Abraham and of David. Abraham preceded the giving of “the law” at Sanai while David’s writings appear in the “writings”.

    Regarding Abraham, Paul says that God accounted him righteous on the basis of belief, not works.

    If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” … To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:2-3, 5)

    In regards to David’s message from “the law”, Paul reasons:

    David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” (Romans 4:6-8)

    At Romans 3:21 Paul wrote of “a righteousness from God, apart from law”. At Romans 4:6 Paul expressed this as “God credits righteousness apart from works”. This shows that the expression “apart from law” is simply a way of describing works of obedience which are employed by a person to achieve favor with God, in an effort to be deemed by him as being righteous.

    Paul then shows that although these examples of “righteousness apart from works” from Abraham and David are conveyed in the Scriptures of the Hebrews, they apply equally to the uncircumcised. This is shown in the fact that Abraham was credited as righteous before he received the rite of circumcision (Romans 4:9 – 12).

    Paul continues his theme that Abraham was credited with righteousness on the basis of his faith, and not through works. Here, the anarthrous “law” is contrasted against “faith”.

    Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. … It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless. (Romans 4:9, 13 – 14)

    Next, Paul says all that “law” brings is wrath, but not righteousness. The wonderful insight is then given that since there is no law, transgression can no longer exist. What wonderful relief!

    Law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15)

    Paul then repeats his message that the promised righteousness on the basis of faith is made to those who are of “the law” (Jews) and to those who are of Abraham, since he is the father of all, circumcised and uncircumcised.

    The promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. (Romans 4:16)

    Paul then returns to the topic of the gospel:

    The words “it was credited to him” were written not for [Abraham] alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. (Romans 4:23-25)

    Being given righteousness on the basis of our faith, Paul says we are at peace with God’s righteous requirements.

    Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5: 1 – 2)

    Thank God we are not saved on the basis of obedience (through “law”), but “through the righteousness that comes by faith”.

    Our righteousness does not rely on our feelings, emotions, doctrinal correctness, or eschatological accuracy. It relies on the completed work of God, and our acceptance of it, through faith.

    ----------------

    I am reminded of an illustration I heard in a sermon.

    The scene is a market, where slaves are being offered to the highest bidder. The next slave on offer is a very powerfully built man.

    The auctioneer calls for bids, but each time a bid is made, the slave mutters, “I will not work”. The bidding goes higher, but with each bid, the slave tells them, “I will not work. I will not work”.

    After a while, no further bids are made, and the slave is sold.

    When the successful bidder comes to the slave, he again repeats “I will not work”.

    The successful bidder removes the chains from the slave and says, “I paid the price so that you can go free. You are no longer a slave.”

    At this, the former slave falls to his knees and says, with tears rolling down his cheeks, “I will serve you all the days of my life and I will do whatever you wish”.

    God forgives because the price has been paid. The forgiven believer then works because they have been rescued, not in order to gain freedom.

    Doug Mason

  • R.Crusoe
    R.Crusoe

    The Romans had an empire they needed to maintain and Christianity was excellent at uniting large swathes of people for political ends. Whether God was interested is another question in the same way as for Ancient Greeks who followed their gods or Ancient Egyptians theirs etc - all around long before any modern Jesus culture but with very similar gods to Jesus in the three day resurrection, virgin birth etc.

    So the spirit you speak of was in other cultures way back with their virgin births and resurrections of dead divinities.

    http://www.stage6.com/PeaceThinkers-Muse/video/1990936/Zeitgeist,-The-Movie---The-Greatest-Story-Ever-Told

  • truthsetsonefree
    truthsetsonefree

    Confused and lost-It was reading the Bible as you are doing (I was a School Overseer and was able to focus on it, Bible Highlights particularly) really proved to me that the FDS does not teach the Bible accurately. Keep going as you are. Reading the Bible for yourself can be a first step in recovery.

    Isaac

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    I saw your thoughts about the potential for discrepancies between Paul and his scribes. I think this has too many assumptions to hurdle, and it opens the potential for people discarding the bits and pieces they don't like or agree with. It would also assume that the scribe at the time was unaware of Paul's teachings on a particular subject, and that they did not discuss the material before it was sent out.

    Doug Mason,

    No! No such assumptions need to be put forward since the use of or failure to use the definite article in this discussion does not change anything for the Romans to which this letter was written. They were Roman Jews now converted to Christianity and still keeping "THE Law" (Pentateuch or the Hebrew Scriptures) a thought which you keep rejecting and you own writings keep showing this to be the case as well in that this was the problem Paul was addressing and the reason why Paul had to keep emphasizing Righteousness from God, apart from law as you have shown in your work. The law was their life, they were raised in it. The law was automatically a part of the Faith for them and as a result they were not heeding our Lord’s cry to be "born again." Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. In fact most of the letters in the NT were devoted to curing this problem. So while you are correct in stating "Paul immediately reaffirms his position that righteousness is wholly and completely dependent on faith" his reasons for doing so was their adherence to this law that they continued to support. Just as your own work is showing where you say: "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. (Romans 3:9)In view of this, Paul argues at Romans 3:20 that no one will be declared righteous by observing "the" law. He said this because they were still doing it. There also was a battle with the word "Law" that the SDA’s I knew had. They insisted in keeping some of this Law like the 10 commandments and letting ceremonial observances go by the wayside. Therefore if this was about all of it then it would be a problem for this theology drummed into them. Righteousness apart from the Law covenant is indeed our freedom in the Faith and this applies to all of it like the 10 commandments and not just bits and pieces of the rest. We use it to learn and understand how it is we came to be and gain insight into what God expects from us, but obedience to it no longer determines "sin" and how we are forgiven for it. How we treat others now is the detrmining factor. That is in a nutshell Paul’s argument as well.

    Joseph

  • ex-icoc
    ex-icoc

    Joseph wrote,

    Like the trip to Jerusalem which failed to correct this and many other attempts like this in other letters, it would finally take something as powerful as Hebrews and the conversion of James to finally settle the matter as he steadfastly kept this law in force not only for such Jews but for some of the apostles like Peter and John as well.

    I am more and more agreeing with your perspective but at times its hard to see since I have been so indoctrinated by Martin Luther and his theology. But I like what you said and I will try to read Romans again by keeping the perspective that he is dealing with a major issue in the church, not some general teaching on salvation. I do however have some questions on your above statements.

    The trip you mentioned to "Jerusalem that failed" is that refering to the Acts 15? What do you mean w/ the conversion of James? Is that not Acts 15 as well, so as I read it you are contradicting yourself, since you say that "it finally settled the matter" or do you mean Acts 21?.

    And I really dont quite get your point with James Peter and John keeping the law. Does not Gal 2:14 talk about Peter not keeping the Law.

    I guess what I am saying is give me some references for the above statements.

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    The trip you mentioned to "Jerusalem that failed" is that referring to the Acts 15?

    Ex-icoc,

    Yes, but Paul’s trip in Acts 21 some 14 years later also failed to solve this problem and nearly resulted in his death by fellow believers. It also compromised the faith since Paul needing time with them submitted to taking the "vows." This was a very bad time for the faith. Paul would continue to mature however and through support by Christ and fellow believers finally overcome this problem.

    Ex-icoc said: What do you mean w/ the conversion of James? Is that not Acts 15 as well

    No! James and the Jews in Jerusalem continued to keep the law. So we find Paul in a continuing struggle with them everywhere as Romans will also show. James actually tricked Paul by putting an end to this debate in Acts 15 and offered a truce before it could be fully resolved. But this truce was intended only for Gentile believers and not for Jews. Somehow Paul failed to grasp this as he applied it to both sides. He was forcibly corrected in Acts 21 as to how it was really intended to apply. Notice what was then said to him after telling him to take the vows: 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Paul was in trouble again and needed time to reason with them. We see the conversion of James much later and most likely after Hebrews was written in the letter bearing his name.

    Ex-icoc said: so as I read it you are contradicting yourself, since you say that "it finally settled the matter" or do you mean Acts 21?.

    No, Acts 21 did not settle the matter but made it more serious an issue and deadly at that. I mean the letter James wrote, a difficult task for such a proud and influential man and the book of Hebrews. Which came first I do not know but Paul’s letters were all so full of this same issue that any one of them could have served this purpose as well.

    Ex-icoc said: And I really dont quite get your point with James Peter and John keeping the law. Does not Gal 2:14 talk about Peter not keeping the Law.

    Finally yes, a reference to Acts 15 but not when the matter first surface with him at Antioch. Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: They were together now since Peter ran to Jerusalem to James and it was not until Paul arrived there and confronted them as Gal shows, when he made this point to them that Peter listened and supported Paul. We know that James did not from Acts 21 and possibly John as well. I could now see how this finally shook John so badly that he focused on love which was his solution to this controversy. The references for all this were never hidden and have always been in plain sight. All we have to do is to carefully follow the story.

    Joseph

  • ex-icoc
    ex-icoc

    Doug Mason wrote:

    This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all … are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. … A man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Romans 3:22-25, 28)

    If I may suggest to read Romans 3:28 in the NASB. To me it makes a clearer distinction between the law and works being talked about.

    The NIV translates it "observing the law" instead of "works of the Law". Its the same greek work in Rom 3:28 and Rom 4:2. Stongs G2040.

    Rom 3:28 - "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." NASB In context the Mosiac Law. So as one proceeds into Romans 4:2, "For if Abraham was justified by works" I would say that he is not talking about works of Obedience as in following Jesus commands..ie John 15:10 (where we are clearly supposed to obey or we will be cut off from the vine) but works of the Law as in Rom 3:28 ie.. circumcision or the Mosaic Law in general.

    This way we can hold Law (Mosaic) and works (Works of the law) consistent throughtout Romans and that way we can take James 2 "works" literally and without contradiction as meaning works of obedience to Jesus commands as in John 14 and 15.

    Hopefully I have not misread your statements.

  • ex-icoc
    ex-icoc

    Joseph wrote : All we have to do is to carefully follow the story.

    Wow that does make sence. I do however have a few other questions. You said that the book of James (or as I am understanding you) is a reversal by James. Where do you get that impression from James? I could most definatly see the book of Hebrews, but James?

    I thought that James was said died to have died faithfull to the law. Do you know that reference? I am talking about early Christian works. All I could find was Josephus which would help prove your line of thinking:

    so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit