Theology Club: Roman 4:16

[Lighthouse]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“[/FONT][/FONT]Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”

Can anyone who opposes MAD explain to me why this verse appears to make a distinction between those of the law and those of faith apart from the law?

For context see the whole chapter wherein Paul discusses the imputation of righteousness to Abraham before even circumcision.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[way 2 go]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“[/FONT][/FONT]Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”

Can anyone who opposes MAD explain to me why this verse appears to make a distinction between those of the law and those of faith apart from the law?

For context see the whole chapter wherein Paul discusses the imputation of righteousness to Abraham before even circumcision.
[/FONT][/FONT]

:think:

Abraham is the father of 2 covenants

1. of faith

Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

2.of circumcision

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

 

[glorydaz]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“[/FONT][/FONT]Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”

Can anyone who opposes MAD explain to me why this verse appears to make a distinction between those of the law and those of faith apart from the law?

For context see the whole chapter wherein Paul discusses the imputation of righteousness to Abraham before even circumcision.
[/FONT][/FONT]

That's one of those verses that never had a good explanation until I came here and heard about MAD. Not only....but also certainly is making a distinction between two groups.

 

[Lighthouse]

That's one of those verses that never had a good explanation until I came here and heard about MAD. Not only....but also certainly is making a distinction between two groups.

:thumb:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“[/FONT][/FONT]Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”

Can anyone who opposes MAD explain to me why this verse appears to make a distinction between those of the law and those of faith apart from the law?

For context see the whole chapter wherein Paul discusses the imputation of righteousness to Abraham before even circumcision.
[/FONT][/FONT]

The distinction made is to call attention to the fact that the promise is not to physical descendants, but to spiritual descendants. Abraham is the father of us all - our spiritual father, as it were. Q.E.D.

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

The distinction made is to call attention to the fact that the promise is not to physical descendants, but to spiritual descendants. Abraham is the father of us all - our spiritual father, as it were. Q.E.D.

AMR

That's half of it, certainly. But why is it made clear that there are two different types of spiritual descendants? Why not state that all descendants are of faith, if that is the case?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When called, Abraham was in Ur of the Chaldeans and was an idolatrous pagan. Before the covenant was made with him no "Jews" or "Gentiles" existed. Paul instructs us that Abraham's faith was righteous before these sort of distinctions were made. Abraham's faith, trusting in God's promise and not his own works, is a spiritual prototype that applies to all true believers, not just to the Jews of the Law.

AMR

 

[Desert Reign]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“[/FONT][/FONT]Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”

Can anyone who opposes MAD explain to me why this verse appears to make a distinction between those of the law and those of faith apart from the law?

For context see the whole chapter wherein Paul discusses the imputation of righteousness to Abraham before even circumcision.
[/FONT][/FONT]

The distinction is made by those who claimed that Jews (i.e. Jewish Christians) are superior to gentiles (i.e. gentile Christians). See for example Rom 2:17-29. Paul's argument is exactly the opposite of that, namely that in Christ there is no such distinction. Paul brings Abraham into it because Abraham was revered by Jews for his faith and thus he puts these critical self-opinionated Jews into their place since Abraham himself was not under any law when he was declared righteous, whereas these Jews boasted in the law.

By the way, I used to oppose MAD and I suppose that technically I still do. But I don't actively oppose it as I generally get on well with you folks. But since you ask, there is my answer.

 

[glorydaz]

The distinction is made by those who claimed that Jews (i.e. Jewish Christians) are superior to gentiles (i.e. gentile Christians). See for example Rom 2:17-29. Paul's argument is exactly the opposite of that, namely that in Christ there is no such distinction. Paul brings Abraham into it because Abraham was revered by Jews for his faith and thus he puts these critical self-opinionated Jews into their place since Abraham himself was not under any law when he was declared righteous, whereas these Jews boasted in the law.

By the way, I used to oppose MAD and I suppose that technically I still do. But I don't actively oppose it as I generally get on well with you folks. But since you ask, there is my answer.

Hmmm....that makes a LOT of sense. :think:

 

[Lighthouse]

When called, Abraham was in Ur of the Chaldeans and was an idolatrous pagan. Before the covenant was made with him no "Jews" or "Gentiles" existed. Paul instructs us that Abraham's faith was righteous before these sort of distinctions were made. Abraham's faith, trusting in God's promise and not his own works, is a spiritual prototype that applies to all true believers, not just to the Jews of the Law.

AMR

Irrelevant to the question.

The distinction is made by those who claimed that Jews (i.e. Jewish Christians) are superior to gentiles (i.e. gentile Christians). See for example Rom 2:17-29. Paul's argument is exactly the opposite of that, namely that in Christ there is no such distinction. Paul brings Abraham into it because Abraham was revered by Jews for his faith and thus he puts these critical self-opinionated Jews into their place since Abraham himself was not under any law when he was declared righteous, whereas these Jews boasted in the law.

By the way, I used to oppose MAD and I suppose that technically I still do. But I don't actively oppose it as I generally get on well with you folks. But since you ask, there is my answer.

In this passage Paul does not say there are not two groups. He distinctly says there are. It is only ever in the Body of Christ that Paul states there is no Jew or Gentile.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In this passage Paul does not say there are not two groups. He distinctly says there are.

You are wanting the passage to carry more freight than it can bear. It is not making a distinction, but calling out the erroneous distinctions being made.

AMR

 

[Desert Reign]

In this passage Paul does not say there are not two groups. He distinctly says there are. It is only ever in the Body of Christ that Paul states there is no Jew or Gentile.

Yes, of course there are two groups. Jews and gentiles.

Eph 2:

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

In my last post I cited Romans 2 because obviously that is very close to the context of the verse you first quoted in Romans 4. But I think it is clear from the whole of Paul's writings that he has a big thing about the rapprochement of Jews with Gentiles. At the time, Jews held an extremely condescending attitude towards non-Jews and Paul clearly made it his mission to overcome this prejudice. Of course outside the church they could do whatever they wanted, but within the church Paul was very intolerant of Jewish Christians who mistreated the gentile Christians. This is very much in evidence in Galatians where even Peter fell into the trap and had to be rebuked by Paul for refusing to share fellowship with gentile believers. Paul's conclusion? In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (another term for gentile) and then extending this to other possible areas of prejudice - male-female and slave-free. Christ made all men equal. Faith was a universal principle that transcended petty nationalistic or cultural or religious differences. Christ was not divided.

 

[Lighthouse]

You are wanting the passage to carry more freight than it can bear. It is not making a distinction, but calling out the erroneous distinctions being made.

AMR

Then show that to be the case.

Yes, of course there are two groups. Jews and gentiles.

Eph 2:

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

In my last post I cited Romans 2 because obviously that is very close to the context of the verse you first quoted in Romans 4. But I think it is clear from the whole of Paul's writings that he has a big thing about the rapprochement of Jews with Gentiles. At the time, Jews held an extremely condescending attitude towards non-Jews and Paul clearly made it his mission to overcome this prejudice. Of course outside the church they could do whatever they wanted, but within the church Paul was very intolerant of Jewish Christians who mistreated the gentile Christians. This is very much in evidence in Galatians where even Peter fell into the trap and had to be rebuked by Paul for refusing to share fellowship with gentile believers. Paul's conclusion? In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (another term for gentile) and then extending this to other possible areas of prejudice - male-female and slave-free. Christ made all men equal. Faith was a universal principle that transcended petty nationalistic or cultural or religious differences. Christ was not divided.

Which are of the law and which are of faith?

 

[Desert Reign]

Which are of the law and which are of faith?

I'm not sure why you ask this. It seems clear that in the early church period there was a significant prejudice of Jews against gentiles (this is also attested by many synagogue inscriptions) and this prejudice carried over into the church. Since Paul ended up evangelising primarily the gentiles, it was obviously in his interest and in the interest of the gospel to ensure that when the gentiles came into the church they were not greeted by a cool frosty silence and being treated as second class citizens.

Paul himself answers your question in the passage I just quoted:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—

In other words, anyone can become a Jew if they want to; being Jewish is not something special so really the Jews have little to boast about. Paul expands on this in Romans

For true Jewishness is not something visible, nor is true circumcision a matter of something visible in the flesh.
But true Jewishness is hidden, and true circumcision is when the heart is circumcised by the spirit rather than literally. That person gets his approval from God, not from men.

(my translation)

So those 'of the law', as you ask, are those who circumcise themselves (either as an individual choice or as a religious norm). Those of the faith are those who believe in God with their hearts and willingly follow his righteous precepts.

Of course you can be both. But what you can't do is rely on your law keeping for your righteousness - again, from the passage I quoted earlier:

But here you are, you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God
and know the will of God and are a student of all the right forms of instruction from the law... Circumcision is worthwhile if you keep the law, but if you disobey the law, your circumcision might as well be a sign of being heathen.

and again:

But we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those subject to it, to render all defense useless and the whole world answerable to God, because, not one living soul will be justified before him by doing what the law says, for through the law comes the knowledge of wrongdoing.

 

[beloved57]

It's just a distinction being made between jew and Gentile believers just like John 10:16 ; 11:51 - 52 ; 1 John 2;2 , hence all believers , whether jew or Gentile are of the One seed of Abraham and heirs according to promise !

Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm not sure why you ask this. It seems clear that in the early church period there was a significant prejudice of Jews against gentiles (this is also attested by many synagogue inscriptions) and this prejudice carried over into the church. Since Paul ended up evangelising primarily the gentiles, it was obviously in his interest and in the interest of the gospel to ensure that when the gentiles came into the church they were not greeted by a cool frosty silence and being treated as second class citizens.

Paul himself answers your question in the passage I just quoted:

In other words, anyone can become a Jew if they want to; being Jewish is not something special so really the Jews have little to boast about. Paul expands on this in Romans

(my translation)

So those 'of the law', as you ask, are those who circumcise themselves (either as an individual choice or as a religious norm). Those of the faith are those who believe in God with their hearts and willingly follow his righteous precepts.

Of course you can be both. But what you can't do is rely on your law keeping for your righteousness - again, from the passage I quoted earlier:

and again:

This doesn't explain why Paul referred to some as being of the law as opposed to being of faith and vice versa.

 

[Desert Reign]

This doesn't explain why Paul referred to some as being of the law as opposed to being of faith and vice versa.

In my view, it does explain it. Of course you have your own explanation which will be different. But my answers do nevertheless explain it.

 

[Lighthouse]

In my view, it does explain it. Of course you have your own explanation which will be different. But my answers do nevertheless explain it.

Your argument is that those of the law are also of faith.

 

[Desert Reign]

Your argument is that those of the law are also of faith.

This is what I said:

Of course you can be both. But what you can't do is rely on your law keeping for your righteousness - again, from the passage I quoted earlier:

I am talking about Christians here. Or at least those who claim to be. The Judaizers claimed that only those who were circumcised could be Christians and therefore mandated circumcision as a rite for gentile believers. This teaching was finally scotched by the council of Jerusalem. But it doesn't stop Jewish believers from being circumcised. See the bold part. There is nothing wrong with a Jewish Christian keeping the law for cultural reasons.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is what I said:

I am talking about Christians here. Or at least those who claim to be. The Judaizers claimed that only those who were circumcised could be Christians and therefore mandated circumcision as a rite for gentile believers. This teaching was finally scotched by the council of Jerusalem. But it doesn't stop Jewish believers from being circumcised. See the bold part. There is nothing wrong with a Jewish Christian keeping the law for cultural reasons.

I am using the passage to which I referred to argue for the position of A9d that there were, at the time, two different groups with two different messages on the same foundation. There were those who were of the law and those who were of faith alone.
Paul was not speaking against Judaizers in said passage. He did that in other passages.