The Letter to the Romans...

[homwardbound]

Romans 4:4-8

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”​

What Paul's Saying...

Continuing with the concept of work (note: this is not talking about "The Law's works/actions" [i.e. "works of the law" (post #35)] but about "works/actions" in general); Paul explains how a person's wages isn't a gift but what's owed to him. Then switching to Justification from God; Paul says it's through belief which is independent from any action to *earn* it [the justification], proving why it's a gift for God.

In context to Paul's example of Abraham; there were two things factually attributed to Abraham by Paul's question: Abraham's actions/works, and his faith. But Paul explains that the *source* of Abraham justification was his faith.


If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

There are two types of works. One is flesh type that will never please God.
The other is the Spirit of God as what led Christ, Paul, Noah, Abraham. And this was accomplished through Faith (belief) in God, thus being led by God is where the true works are.
So ask God for the difference and be shown truth that sets one free from error
Free from the flesh bondage by reckoning self dead and alive to God, born again in nthe new life offered through Christ, via the resurrected Christ, justified in the Spirit

 

[Elin]

Romans 4:9-12

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.​

What Paul's Saying...

Paul asks (I feel) one of the most important questions of his letter, which reveals the relationship between faith and "works" (i.e. actions). Paul says faith is counted as righteousness 1st...but THEN one's actions are the *seal of that righteousness*. The word "seal" used in this context means "confirmation"; proof or verification.

From Paul's example, God commanded Abraham to circumcise, and Abraham obeyed. But - following Paul's explanation here - it was Abraham's faith that counted him as righteous, and that righteousness was confirmed in Abraham's action/work of circumcising. Faith is counted as righteousness...but that righteousness must be sealed/confirmed by the action/work of obeying God (Post#39). This is called "walking in the footsteps of faith".


If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

Alternative.

1) Paul is not saying one's actions are the *seal of that righteousness*

He is saying God gave Abraham (who received) circumcision as the outward sign of the righteousness
God had credited to him for his faith.

2) Abraham is the father of the uncircumcised believer (Gentile) as well as the circumcised (Jew).

But not all the circumcised are believers, so Abraham is the father only of the circumcised who
walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham, which shows they have true faith which saves,
and not counterfeit faith, as many of the circumcised had.

Paul is not saying that faith must be confirmed by the action of circumcision.

He is saying that God gave (Abraham received) circumcision as the sign of the
righteousness God credited to him for his faith, apart from any action--for
he kept no law, rendered no service and performed no ritual, including circumcision,
that earned credit to his account before God.

 

[chubbena]

Romans 1:24-25

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. ​

What Paul's Saying...

So the unrighteous are punished for being *disobedient* (i.e. knowing the truth but not acting on it). They’re enslaved by the lusts of their flesh.


If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

I'd say God gave them up as in His Spirit stopped convicting them.

 

[chubbena]

Romans 2:1-5

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. ​

What Paul's Saying...

In context of post #7; Paul then turns his attention to those Unrighteous persons (those who know the truth but who don’t act on it). Speaking to them directly, Paul has 2 problems with them: 1) they are hypocrites who judge others for sins they also continue to do; 2) they take advantage of God’s kindness by continuing to sin (because [post #2] grace is the power to be *obedient* to God). Paul says God’s kindness is to help us to repent (i.e. “turn away from sin”), not to continue in it. But those who continue in it have hard hearts and are storing up wrath for the Day of Judgment.


If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

I'd say he turns his attention to those who have come to "the church" for a while but have yet to repent. They have learnt what's right from wrong but instead of changing their way of life they use the knowledge of truth to point fingers at others. He warns them that God's wrath would come.

 

[chubbena]

Romans 2:14-16

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. ​

What Paul's Saying...

(Paul continuing with the last point) when gentiles - who are not aware of God’s law - naturally obey something in God’s law (found in their hearts), *that* becomes the law Christ will judge them by on the last day, even though they may not be totally aware of God’s law...because at least to that extent they know right from wrong.


If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

If God makes his divine nature known by all that he has made, wouldn't He make His law known in the heart of men also?
I'd say the "nature" mentioned in verse 14 is not something that comes naturally but rather the quality God originally breathed into man.
It's the hardening of the heart that makes God's eternal law ignored.

 

[Yahshua]

Alternative.

1) Paul is not "switching to justification from God."

He is showing that Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness,

while works earn their righteousness,

so since Abraham' righteousness was credited, it was not earned and, therefore, was not by works.

2) He also shows that righteousness is forgiveness of sin, not works of obedience.

-----

Romans 4:4-8

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”​

To everyone:

I know it's tempting to explain doctrine (i.e. going beyond the specific thought currently being analyzed to explain the theme of the letter as a whole), but that's not what I'm trying to do here because that's often what causes misunderstanding and arguments. No, I'm trying to discover the pure interpretation of Paul's letter, *one-thought-at-a-time*, in context.

---

For instance, the above passage (Romans 4:4-8) does not mention Abraham at all...hence, It's not a particular thought *about* Abraham (even though *we know* it's following - in context - Paul's *previous thought* about "Abraham being justified by faith" [post #42], to further explain that previous thought). But THIS particular thought is about why Justification (itself) is a "gift" and not "owed" or "earned"...This is why Paul does not use the personal pronoun "He" in this passage, but uses the indirect pronoun "one" as an objective matter.

So Paul first explains 'how a wage earned through "one" working is not considered a gift' (verse 4), he then switches to 'how justification from God IS a gift because it's not worked for' (verse 5), so that Paul can make the comparison between "a gift" and "not a gift".

Paul then gives another example of his point; the Point of THIS thought ["Justification is a gift and not owed"] using David's words as another example of how one is blessed when God counts one as righteous not based on any action, bringing his point back home in THIS particular thought (i.e. that "Justification is a gift and not owed").

---

I hope to analyze the particular thought of the specific passage referenced, quoting the point made in the previous post as the "context" for the present post.

 

[Hoffco]

We must keep in mind. Paul speaks of two kinds of righteousness, the first is IMPARTED righteous, in the new birth, SANCTIFICATION; then the SECOND kind of righteousness is the IMPUTED righteous as in JUSTIFICATION. Paul begins his book with the IMPARTED righteousness because the sinner is unable to respond to the Gospel call without being born of God. In ch. 2, Paul mentions Justification by works, to condemn the hypocrite Jew's faith only life, and in preparation for ch.3 where he introduces justification by grace and faith. Paul's order in justification is really , by grace 1st. by faith 2nd. and by works 3rd.. Paul also does this in titus and ephesians. Hoffco

 

[Hoffco]

Keep in mind The GIFT aspect of salvation comes before our faith and our works. Our faith and works do not save us. This is why we are not born again by our receiving Jesus as Savior. We are born again by Grace, then we receive Jesus as SAVIOR and LORD. Hoffco

 

[Hoffco]

In Titus paul's first says, Grace makes us HOLY persons ,zealous for good works, chs, 1&2; Then in ch3. Paul tells us how we got holy. Not by our works, but by Grace; v.5 "..He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (sanctification begun, the radical brake with sin) Then is v.7 the2nd step is "having been justified by His grace we should become heirs...". BOTH are gifts of grace. Hoffco

 

[Hoffco]

In Ephesians Paul starts with eternal love, predestination to ADOPTION, JUSTIFICATION; then in v.19 speaks of POWER working in us. In Ch,2:1 we were dead ,GRACE, POWER, make us alive, we believe as a GIFT of GRACE, created unto good works. Our faith and good works come as a gift from GRACE. Hoffco

 

[Hoffco]

Please keep in mind that what Adam had naturally ,he lost. We don't have a natural righteousness like Adam have .the image of God is renewed in the new birth. being renewed in the image of Him who made us in true knowledge of God , righteousness and holiness, these three things are restored to us in the new birth, "MADE" HOLY, by new birth. Eph. 4:24 Col. 3:10. The Gentile is born again in Romans ch 2. Hoffco

 

[Yahshua]

Paul asks (I feel) one of the most important questions of his letter, which reveals the relationship between faith and "works" (i.e. actions). Paul says faith is counted as righteousness 1st...but THEN one's actions are the *seal of that righteousness*. The word "seal" used in this context means "confirmation"; proof or verification.

From Paul's example, God commanded Abraham to circumcise, and Abraham obeyed. But - following Paul's explanation here - it was Abraham's faith that counted him as righteous, and that righteousness was confirmed in Abraham's action/work of circumcising. Faith is counted as righteousness...but that righteousness must be sealed/confirmed by the action/work of obeying God (Post#39). This is called "walking in the footsteps of faith".

Romans 4:13-15

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”​

What Paul's Saying...

[I think it's important to note here that Abraham never experienced the fulfilled of the following promise to him in his lifetime.]

Continuing with the example of Abraham being justified by faith (again, the context at this point of the letter is justification by faith; the other element now being considered apart from the Law; Post #37)...

Paul explains that *the promise* from God to Abraham & his seed - "to inherit the world" - came through faith, and not the law [i.e. there were no prior instructions to follow or any proof that God would keep his promise; but Abraham believed him anyway]. In other words, there wasn't any statute in the law that said "thou shall do this...and you will be heir of the world".

And if there were results like that from following instructions in the law then *the promise* (in context) wouldn't be "by faith", nor would there have been any point to the promise itself (it simply would've been the "output/results" for the "input/adherence"), for/because The Law's work is actually to reveal unrighteousness (i.e. sin) in the world and thus the wrath of a Just God (Post #35),

"But" [a conjunction *CONTRASTING* Paul's "for/because..." ] if the law didn't exist no one would know what "transgression" is.


If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

 

[Yahshua]

[I think it's important to note here that Abraham never experienced the fulfilled of the following promise to him in his lifetime.]

Continuing with the example of Abraham being justified by faith (again, the context at this point of the letter is justification by faith; the other element now being considered apart from the Law; Post #37)...

Paul explains that *the promise* from God to Abraham & his seed - "to inherit the world" - came through faith, and not the law [i.e. there were no prior instructions to follow or any proof that God would keep his promise; but Abraham believed him anyway]. In other words, there wasn't any statute in the law that said "thou shall do this...and you will be heir of the world".

And if there were results like that from following instructions in the law then *the promise* (in context) wouldn't be "by faith", nor would there have been any point to the promise itself (it simply would've been the "output/results" for the "input/adherence"), for/because The Law's work is actually to reveal unrighteousness (i.e. sin) in the world and thus the wrath of a Just God (Post #35),

"But" [a conjunction *CONTRASTING* Paul's "for/because..." ] if the law didn't exist no one would know what "transgression" is.

Romans 4:16-17

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.​

What Paul's Saying...

(Concluding the previous point), Paul says this is why the promise [to inherit the world] needs faith in order to guarantee it with grace (Post #39); for not only (a) the follower of the law but also (b) those who are faithful like Abraham...with God watching, who himself operates through faith:

- To give life to the dead is an act of faith (because there's no prior proof it'll happen)

- To bring into existence something that does not exist is an act of faith (because there's no prior proof it'll happen)


NOTE: In this passage, both the follower of the law (previously referencing Jews in this letter) AND the one who has faith like Abraham are counted together as offspring of Abraham, if they by faith possess the grace to guarantee the promise.


If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

 

[Elin]

To everyone:

I know it's tempting to explain doctrine (i.e. going beyond the specific thought currently being analyzed to explain the theme of the letter as a whole), but that's not what I'm trying to do here because that's often what causes misunderstanding and arguments. No, I'm trying to discover the pure interpretation of Paul's letter, *one-thought-at-a-time*, in context.
---
For instance, the above passage (Romans 4:4-8) does not mention Abraham at all...hence, It's not a particular thought *about* Abraham (even though *we know* it's following - in context - Paul's *previous thought* about "Abraham being justified by faith" [post #42], to further explain that previous thought). But THIS particular thought is about why Justification (itself) is a "gift" and not "owed" or "earned"...This is why Paul does not use the personal pronoun "He" in this passage, but uses the indirect pronoun "one" as an objective matter.

So Paul first explains 'how a wage earned through "one" working is not considered a gift' (verse 4), he then switches to 'how justification from God IS a gift because it's not worked for' (verse 5), so that Paul can make the comparison between "a gift" and "not a gift".

Paul then gives another example of his point; the Point of THIS thought ["Justification is a gift and not owed"] using David's words as another example of how one is blessed when God counts one as righteous not based on any action, bringing his point back home in THIS particular thought (i.e. that "Justification is a gift and not owed".)

So we are in agreement that

Paul is explaining the principle whereby
justification/righteousness by works means justification/righteousness is owed and, therefore,
righteousness/justification would not be the gift (Ro 5:17) freely credited as Ge 15:6 states.

We are in agreement that Paul's presentation of the principle is to demonstrate that justification/righteousness is not by works of obedience.

I hope to analyze the particular thought of the specific passage referenced, quoting
the point made in the previous post as the "context" for the present post.

Thanks, because statements are not made in a vacuum,
and I don't see how we can profitably consider anything outside its context.

 

[Elin]

We must keep in mind. Paul speaks of two kinds of righteousness, the first is
IMPARTED righteous, in the new birth, SANCTIFICATION; then the SECOND kind of righteousness is the
IMPUTED righteous as in JUSTIFICATION.

Yes, and he states that

"imputed" righteousness, which is guiltless right standing (only) before God because of forgiveness of sin
by faith through grace, effecting no change of character,

is followed by "imparted" righteousness through a life of sanctification by the obedience of faith
through grace.

Judaizers all read from the same playbook on the Bible.

 

[Elin]

Keep in mind The GIFT aspect of salvation comes before our faith and our works. Our faith and works do not save us. This is why we are not born again by our receiving Jesus as Savior. We are born again by Grace, then we receive Jesus as SAVIOR and LORD.

Rebirth is a gift.

Faith is a gift (Php 1:29).

Justification/righteousness (guiltless, right standing before God) is a gift (Ro 5:17).

Salvation from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) is a gift.

Repentance is a gift (2Tim 2:25).

Power (grace) of obedience to sanctification is a gift (Php 2:13).

 

[Elin]

In Titus paul's first says, Grace makes us HOLY persons ,zealous for good works, chs, 1&2; Then in ch3. Paul tells us how we got holy. Not by our works, but by Grace; v.5 "..He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (sanctification begun, the radical brake with sin) Then is v.7 the2nd step is "having been justified by His grace we should become heirs...".
BOTH are gifts of grace.

Revisit the grammatical construction for their correct order of occurence.

 

[Elin]

Please keep in mind that what Adam had naturally ,he lost. We don't have a natural righteousness like Adam have .the image of God is renewed in the new birth. being renewed in the image of Him who made us in true knowledge of God , righteousness and holiness, these three things are restored to us in the new birth, "MADE" HOLY, by new birth. Eph. 4:24 Col. 3:10]

We also "will be" made new, and are to "put on" righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:23-24; Col 3:10)

 

[Elin]

Romans 4:13-15

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”​

What Paul's Saying...

[I think it's important to note here that Abraham never experienced the fulfilled of the following promise to him in his lifetime.]

Heb 11:13-16 explains how that promise was fulfilled to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
in a heavenly land/city.

Continuing with the example of Abraham being justified by faith (again, the context at this point of the letter is justification by faith;
the other element now being considered apart from the Law; Post #37)...

There is no element of law in justification by faith, which can then be distinguished apart from faith.

Paul explains that *the promise* from God to Abraham & his seed - "to inherit the world" - came through faith, and not the law [i.e. there were no prior instructions to follow

There was no Mosaic law at that time for the promise to be based on.

or any proof that God would keep his promise;

God's covenant pledge is not proof?

but Abraham believed him anyway]. In other words, there wasn't any statute in the law that said "thou shall do this...and you will be heir of the world".

No, not "in other words."

There was no Mosaic law at that time for the promise to come through, it could come only through faith.

And if there were results like that from following instructions in the law

What instructions in the law?

There was no Mosaic law for results from following it to occur.

Are you off the rails here?

then *the promise* (in context) wouldn't be "by faith", nor would there have been any point to the promise itself (it simply would've been the "output/results" for the "input/adherence"), for/because The Law's work is actually to reveal unrighteousness (i.e. sin) in the world and thus the wrath of a Just God (Post #35),

"But" [a conjunction *CONTRASTING* Paul's "for/because..." ] if the law didn't exist no one would know what "transgression" is.

If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

Alternative.

Those who are under the law cannot be heirs to the promise for two reasons:

v. 14 - 1) Faith is made worthless, for the promise is then inherited by law keeping, not faith
(clearly showing the opposition between faith and law),
for no one can keep the law well enough to qualify for inheritance of the promise
and, therefore, the promise would be effectively void.

v. 15 - For the law works wrath, not promise of an inheritance.
For where there is no law there is no transgression, and conversely,
where there is law there is transgression and wrath.
The law produces wrath, not promise.

2) there was no law when Abraham received the promise, it was not made to him through the law,
but through the righteousness of faith, so that:
a) it would be of grace, not of works, or owed, or earned,
b) it could not be voided by the failure of perfect law keeping,
3) all those who are the seed of Abraham through faith would be heirs to the promise (Gal 3:29).

 

[Elin]

Romans 4:16-17

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.​

What Paul's Saying...

(Concluding the previous point), Paul says this is why the promise [to inherit the world] needs faith in order to guarantee it. . .

If you agree with this interpretation, “like”.

If you disagree with this interpretation, post an alternative for others to agree with.

If you’d like further elaboration of an interpretation, feel free to ask.

Alternative.

1) "Depends" means "based on," not "added to."

The promise is based on faith, faith is not added to it.

2) "adherent of the law" = the Jewish Christian

"of the faith of Abraham" = both Jewish and Gentile ChristianThe promise is to all who are
of the faith of Abraham, including those who adhere to the law (Jews),

but the promise is not based on the law.

with grace (Post #39); for not only (a) the follower of the law but also (b) those who are faithful like Abraham...with God watching, who himself operates through faith:

- To give life to the dead is an act of faith (because there's no prior proof it'll happen)

- To bring into existence something that does not exist is an act of faith (because there's no prior proof it'll happen)

Our father in the sight of God, though not our physical father in the sight of men.

NOTE: In this passage, both the follower of the law (previously referencing Jews in this letter) AND the one who has faith like Abraham are counted together as offspring of Abraham,

No, the follower of the law must have faith like Abraham to be counted together as Abraham's offspring (Gal 2:29).

if they by faith possess the grace to guarantee the promise.

God's power of grace does not guarantee the promise, the word of God guarantees the promise.

Grace gives the faith by which the promise is received, which received promise is guaranteed by the word of God.