Romans - March 3, 2008

Section -- Three; Justification -- Romans 3:21-5:18, continued

C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. PONDER: Consider the relationship between Abraham, circumcision, Law of Moses, and salvation via Christ. {Gen 15:1-5; 17:24; Neh 9:9-14; Acts 15:1,5,16}.
a. Circumcision was not part of the Law of Moses. Circumcision put one in a covenant relationship with God. Those in a covenant relationship with God obeyed the Law of Moses — Abraham never obeyed Law of Moses.
b. NOTE: When God gave Abraham the “Covenant of Circumcision” it included Abraham’s descendants and any servant in his household [Gen 17:8-13]. When Abraham’s descendants fled Egypt circumcision was expanded to include any strangers celebrating the Passover+...
(1) Circumcision was practiced while they were in Egypt [Exo 12:48; Jos 5:5] but not a consistent practice, if at all, while they were wandering for 4o years in the wilderness [Jos 5:1-5].
c. Before following the Law Of Moses could be of value one had to be circumcised. Thus, until the “LOM Christians” convinced the gentiles circumcision was necessary they could not push the second step — was also necessary to obey the Law of Moses and the law of Christ.
d. How many people were circumcised because they were righteous? {Gen 17:7-11,13}
(1) None at most one. Circumcision did not indicate a spiritual relationship with God, as Abraham had, but who had a physical relationship with Abraham who had a spiritual relationship with God. Circumcision was a sign given to those if they did or not have faith or were righteous or not.
e. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy [Act 16:1-3] and not Titus [Gal 2:3]?
(1) Issue was the false teaching requiring one to have a physical relationship with Abraham, via circumcision, before they could have a spiritual relationship with Christ. Since circumcision only indicated one had a physical relationship with Abraham, a relationship not had by the gentile Titus, there was nothing wrong (while not necessary) with Timothy being circumcised.

2. PONDER: What is the significance of the different reading in KJV and ASV?
a. Note the commas are setting off a “nonrestrictive phrased”. A nonrestrictive phrase is a nonessential phrase that could be omitted without changing the meaning of the main clause. The translators have in the noted versions decides the phrase inclosed in commas do not change the meaning of the main clause, thus, can be left out.
***************************************
Rom 4:1
(KJV) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

(ASV) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh?

(NASB) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

(NASB fn) What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather; according to the flesh has found?
***************************************
b. By not reading the “non restrictive phrase” the KJV and the NASB are asking what Abraham found and the means by what he found is not important. By not reading the “non restrictive phrase” the ASV and the NASB fn are asking if it was by the means of the flesh Abraham was justified, i.e. was it by physical works not grace.
c. The issue or flow of argument is how Abraham was saved (by his own efforts, i.e. by works of the flesh, or God’s efforts) not how they were related to Abraham [cf. 4:2].
(1) ASV and NASB footnote are a better reading than KJV for they make it clear Paul is going to show Abraham was saved by grace not works of the flesh

OBSERVATION: When Paul is discussing works he means more than obedience to God’s will he means flawless obedience to God’s will. [cf. 4:4-5]

3. PONDER: Why do you think Paul choose Abraham [4:1] to prove his answer to the rhetorical question of 3:31?
a. Is Paul’s purpose to establish all “law of merits” (most notable the Law of Moses) for what they are [3:31] — without faith they do not save for they cannot be perfectly obeyed.
b. LOM Christian having a difficult time accepting concept one not under Law of Moses could be justified for they were not in covenant relationship with God — as observed by their lack of circumcision....
(1) See incident in Antioch (Acts 15:1, A.D. 50) eight years before the Roman letter.
c. To LOM Christian if anybody could be saved “by” (source) deed/works it was Abraham, therefore, if Paul could show he was saved “by” (source) faith not deeds he would have a strong case for salvation “by” (source) and through” (channel) faith. [ref 3:30 OBSERVATION above]

4. PONDER: The Greek word 3049. logizomai is used in every verse from 4:3 through 4:11 and in KJV is translated as: “counted”, “reckoned”, “imputed”. What does this word have to do with Paul’s argument salvation is not earned? (Consider how David, by his use [4:6-8], defines the word.)
a. Thayer: 1) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over 1a) to take into account, to make an account of; 1a1) metaphorically to pass to one’s account, to impute; 1a2) a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight.
b. If we account or count something that it is not; then the act or thing now becomes a matter of grace [v.4], i.e. not something earned by work.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A LOOK AHEAD


OBSERVATION: There is a most popular dogma among many if not all denominations based on the “imputed righteousness” of Rom 4:6. The dogma states when a sinner believes Jesus is their savior Christ imputes His righteousness upon them. The effect is their sins are hidden from God’s eyes for God now sees Christ righteousness and not their sins. This is most comforting for now when one commits a new sin God does not see the sin, thus, one cannot be lost. They still have their sins but God pretends they do not have any sins for He cannot see the sins. This dogma plays down or rejects the idea Jesus’s blood [death] removed in reality (washed away), not just play-like, baptized believer’s sins, thus, enabling the baptized believer to walk in newness of life [Rom 6:4]. Book, Chapter, Verse gospel (Rom 1:16) teaches Jesus’ death was the means to appease or placate God’s judicial wrath, not just a passing over. [“propitiation versus “passed over” Rom 3:25] God also provided way for new sins to be forgiven — not just passed over or hidden from His sight. (1Jo 1:9)
OBSERVATION: Paul is not discussion with these Christians what they did to be forgiven of sins. (As all convicted of sin ask, “What must I do?”, then do.) He is discussing the significance of what they did. Problem is many in Rome think the law of Christ is an addition to Law of Moses not a replacement of the Law of Moses, thus, Paul’s burden is showing what God required for the consequences of God’s judicial wrath to be permanently appeased, not just held back.
5. PONDER: [4:4-5] What is a worker, what is a non-worker? Cf. [Heb 5:8-9].
a.
6. What is the “weakness of, or problem with, salvation “by” (source) works [4:2]?
a.
7. PONDER: Why do you think it would it be wrong, i.e., displease God, for one to boast about earning their righteousness?
a.
8. What does Paul offer as proof Abraham was saved by faith (by believing)?
a.
9. In our text what does Paul say is the difference between works and faith?
a.
10. PONDER: What is the meaning of “grace”?
a.
11. According to David (another person greatly respected by Jews) sins are not imputed (not taken into account, i.e., are forgiven) based on what?
a.
12. PONDER: Why do you think Paul used Abraham and David to support the concept faith (trust) does not nullify law (obedience to the will of another)?
a.
D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — How was Abraham justified?
1. By his faith in God not because he was under any law of merit.
E. Conclusion
1. The first step in showing issue is not faith versus law is establishing faith was a means for justification before and after the Law of Moses and circumcision.
2. Awareness of faith and law establishes value of God declaring one righteous..
a. Righteousness is not something to be earned for it cannot be earned.
3. {Rom 3:31- 4:8} Salvation by faith is a fundamental truth among Old Testament worthies...
a. Most under the LOM had turned God’s plan for LOM (make mankind aware of God’s standard) into a plan of salvation by works of merit.

PRECIOUS NUGGETS

1. (Rom 4:3-4) if justification was not wages (earned) how did it happen?
a. (v.4)
b. (v.3)

IV. {Rom 4:9-12} Abraham’s righteousness because of his faith means salvation is available for everyone, not just those circumcised and obeying the Law of Moses.
A. Introduction
1. Review — Paul has shown Abraham was credited as righteous before circumcision and David, circumcised and living under the LOM, says those acknowledging God do not have their sins taken into account — he does not say only those obeying the Law of Moses.
2. Preview — The fall back position of the LOM Christians would be, if not the LOM justified Abraham, then it was his circumcision. Why circumcision is not the factor determining who can be or is righteous (saved).
B. Question For Discussion? Why is Abraham able to be the ancestor of believing gentiles and believing Jews?
C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. What is the blessing being addressed at 4:9?
a.
2. At what point was Abraham credited as being righteous?
a.
3. Did the act of circumcision make Abraham righteous?
a.
4. What did Abraham’s circumcision mean if did not make him righteousness?
a.
5. What is the significance of the point in time when Abraham was credited as righteous?
a.
6. PONDER: Since baptism is New Testament equivalent of LOM circumcision why is one not saved before they are baptized — i.e., baptism is only a public declaration one is saved; an outward sign of an inward change or turning?
a.
D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — Why is Abraham able to be the ancestor of believing gentiles and believing Jews?
1. His righteousness (salvation, justification) not result of circumcision, thus, he is the father of all who believe (have faith, trust) God in the same way as Abraham, circumcised or not...
a. When God told 85 year old Abraham he would have children he believed.
b. While Sarah had doubts 14 years later (he 99 and she 89) Abraham still believed.
E. Conclusion
1. Circumcision does not a play a part in our salvation, i.e., both the circumcised and non-circumcised can be credited as righteous (forgiven of sins)...
a. Righteousness is based on our trust in accepting God’s word — as seen in our obedience.

V. {Rom 4:13-17 } Only faith can guarantee God’s promise to Abraham and his seed
A. Introduction
1. Review — The LOM Christians can no longer claim circumcision has anything to do with having one’s sins covered, i.e., being righteousness, for such is by faith.
2. Preview — Paul now moves to the next step, the Law of Moses (any law of merit) does not make one righteous.
B. Question For Discussion — What is there about God fulfilling His promise to Abraham preventing the LOM from being involved in God’s promise to Abraham?
C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. (4:13) The word “through” (G1223 dia) is a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act, the means of delivery. The LOM Christians know Abraham was not under the LOM, thus, why does Paul stress “not through law but faith”
a.
2. Why can one not receive God’s promise via any law of merit, i.e. why can God’s promises only be filled by “righteousness of faith”?
a.
3. Based on what the obedient (believing) Jew obtained what is the meaning of “world” in this passage? Consider the following...
a. {ACT 26:6-7, 22-23; 28:13} What does this say about what the Jew thought the hoped for promise was going to be.
(1)
b. {HEB 11:8-10; 13-16; 39) When God makes a promise it will come about when the conditions of that promise is obeyed. What does this say about the promise God made to Abraham?
(1)
c. {HEB 12:1-3; 18-24; ACT 2:36} What light does this shine on the meaning of “world”?
(1)
d. {ROM 9:8; GAL 3:28} Who are Abraham’s heir of the promise?
(1)
e. ANSWER:
4. What is the significance of verses 14, 15 beginning with “for” [KJV has “because” 15] and “for this reason”, “cause”, or “therefore” at 16?
a.
5. (4:14) Why is God’s promise nullified if a person had to be, as the LOM Christians believed, obedient to law?
a.
6. (4:14) How does the “for” support position the promise is through faith.
a.
7. (4:15) Why does the law not make one righteous?
a.
OBSERVATION: “no law...no violation” is doing more than just stating the obvious+.
8. (4:15) How does the “for” support the position “law” (earning) makes “faith” (grace) void.
a.
9. (4:16) Two reasons given why promise had to be based on faith not law (flawless obedience), what are they?
a.
10. (4:16b) If the LOM Christian insisted the Gentiles had to obey the LOM to receive the promise what impact would that have on the LOM Christians receiving the promise?
a.
11. (4:17) What does this suggest about the quality of fulfiller of the promise?
a.
12. PONDER: The relationship between God (Gen 21:1-3,12; 22:2,8,12-13; and Rom 4:17 and Heb 11:17-19) and Abraham’s willingness to obey God.
a.
D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] What is there about God fulfilling His promise to Abraham preventing the LOM from being involved in God’s promise to Abraham?
1. The LOM (any law of works) demands flawless obedience, thus, could not be part of God’s promise to Abraham for no person can flawlessly obey God’s law or any law of works or merit.
E. Conclusion — Being a heir of the promise made to Abraham because of his faith requires faith not works by those who are part of the promise, i.e., the kingdom promised to Abraham.