Featured Exegetical examination of Romans 4:6-8

We are dealing with a proper exegesis of Romans 4:6-8. We are not dealing with any attempt to harmonize James 2 with Romans 4. Verse 6 states "without works" not "with works." You are welcome to enter the discussion but please base your comments upon exegesis of the passage not upon your own theological beliefs derived from somewhere else than this particular passage.

I have been accused by TS of claiming that Romans 4:6-8 has the specific design by Paul to repudiate Sacramentalism. However, I have never made such a statement. What I did claim was that Romans 4:9-11 was designed by Paul for that purpose not verses 6-8.

 

Psalm 32 is the confession of a believer but one who in his own person is a confessing sinner. Also in verse 5 the one being justified is described in regard to his own person as "the ungodly." David is confessing the lack of personal "righteousness" in Psalm 32.

The very need for remission of sin is due only for one who is personally without righteousness.

Remember the introductory purpose given by Paul for inserting David's words at this point in his discussion is to show that righteousness is imputed "without works."

The nature of these "works" must be explained in connection with their introduction in Romans 4:1 in regard to Abraham because verses 4-5 are principles merely to reinforce what Paul says in verses 1-3 in regard to Abraham and faith rather than works as the basis for justification.

The nature of "works" in connection with Abraham cannot refer to "evil" works as no one could imagine that God would justify or impute righteousness to anyone based upon "evil" works. Hence, they must at least refer to some type of "good" works.

Since there was no Mosaic law existent at the time of Abraham, the "works" under discussion in connection with Abraham cannot possibly refer to the religious works of Judaism. Hence, "works" must refer to whatever "good" that could be found in the person of Abraham and his actions that would merit justification.

Nothing could be found in the person of "the ungodly" to merit justification. David was a believer but Psalm 32 readily reveals nothing in his own person could merit justification as this is a confession of personal sinfulness rather than personal righteousness.

Hence, contextually, in regard to both Abraham, the "ungodly" and to "David" in context of Psalm 32 "works....worketh not.....without works" in this context must refer to any basis of righteousness that can be found in the person of "Abraham....the ungodly.....David..." for justification before God.

This is a graphic denial that justification has any connection ("without") with personal righteousness but is obtained some other way and in some other connection than in the personal fitness of those being justified.

 

I never intended this thread to be an exegesis of Romans 4:9-11! I believe the key to understanding the entire illustration of Abraham and justification is found in verses 6-8. Let us continue!

 

Open a thread if you would like to discuss that topic. This thread is "chewing the fat" in Romans 4:6-8.

 

In the last post we saw that the immediate context preceding the quotation from David refers to "the ungodly" and that the Davidic context refers to a believer in an "ungodly" condition as well - both without personal righteousness. Hence, the "works" of both are totally inadequate to justify them before God and therefore righteousness for justification is not found or obtained in the person or the works of the justified but outside of his person and "without" his works.

Paul's point is that justification is not based upon personal performance in the lost [the ungodly" or believer - David] therefore not only is faith contrasted with works ("worketh not BUT believeth") but excludes all works ("without works") and thus imputation, reckoning, counted does not refer to any kind of righteousness imparted and found in and through the person being justified but is rather righteousness foreign and external to the person being justifed and thus obtained by faith "in" God's promised representative provisonal person or Christ as Paul clearly teaches in his introduction (Rom. 3:24-26) and in his application of the Abraham example at the conclusion (Rom. 4:21-5:2).

Hence, the design of justifying faith is not the production of good works in the "ungodly" but in the reception and resting in the provision of righteousness obtained only external to the "ungodly" found in the promise of the gospel of a representative and provisional substitutionary person - Jesus Christ.

The designation "blessed is the man" characterizes "the ungodly" or Psalm 32 man who have no righteousness in regard to their own person but are justified before God on the basis of righteous external to their own person found only in the representative person and work of Jesus Christ which can only be transferred from His Person to their Person through legal imputation by faith according to God's promise revealed in the gospel. The kind of righteousness that God's law requires for justification ("the rightousness of God" or NOT "coming short of the glory of God" - Rom. 3:22-23) cannot be found in the person of the "ungodly" or in the imperfect righteousness of the believer - (Psa.32) but only in the person of Jesus Christ. This proves that progressive imparted righteousness is NEVER sufficient for justification before God as it ALWAS comes short of God's standard for righteousness.

Later Paul will teach that all who are thus justified are also regenerated and made spiritually alive in Christ and "good works" are the fruit of regeneration as James teaches in James 1:18. Thus the same faith that justifies is a living faith manifested by the fruits of the living Spirit within them.

 

Just as "even as" connected verse 5 to verses 6-8 carrying on the subject of imputation without works found in verse 5 to verses 6-8, so also "cometh this blessedness" carries on the subject of imputed righteousness and remission of sins without works in verses 6-8 into verses 9-12.

Now, it is this "blessedness" that introduces Romans 4:9-11 which further illustrates the righteousness for justification is not derived from, in or through ones personal life but is derived outside, external to the life of the believer.

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul divides Abraham's life into two classifications 1) in circumcision; 2) in uncircumcision. Circumcision is an external visible act that commits the whole life to personal obedience to all other ceremonial rites and commandment keeping and thus is the epitomy of a MANIFEST LIFE OF PERSONAL RIGHTEOUS OBEDIENCE ("the faithful") whereas uncircumcision represents the very opposite or is the epitomy of a MANIFEST LIFE WITHOUT PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS ("the ungodly" or the Psalm 32 condition). Again, "righteousness" equals "this blessedness" and refers to the kind or righteous life that does not "come short" of the glory of God - hence a life that does not commit sins of omission.

Again, the question is, is justification before God dependent upon and derived from the righteousness manifested in the personal life of the sinner or is justification before God depend upon and is derived from faith in righteousness found external to the life of the sinner and obtained through imputation rather than impartation. Again, remember the righteousness that justifies before God is a righteousness that does NOT "come short of the glory of God" or a life where sins of omission are not to be found.

 

Is justification an incompleted linear ongoing action inclusive of the whole life as a believer or is it a completed action at the point of faith? Rome teaches that it is the former not the latter, although, Rome admits there is an initial beginning point of this linear incompleted action.

Romans 4:9-11 is the only passage within Paul's use of Abraham to illlustrate his doctrine of justification where he deals with the TIME or "when" of Justification. The scriptures preceding and following this passage deal with principles and illustrations that characterize and explain justification but only Romans 4:9-11 actually deals with the TIME "when" justification occurs.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul divides the BELIEVING life of Abraham into two classifications (1) in uncircumcision; (2) in circumcison and restricts the question of "when" to one of these two contrasting times of his life. This very restriction to one but not the other repudiates the Roman Catholic idea that justification is an ongoing continuous incompleted action only completed at the judgement seat of Christ.

Paul further repudiates the Roman Catholic concept by explicitly denying Abraham was justified in the greater portion of his life "in circumcision" as he explicitly and plainly denies Paul was justified in that period of life "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION." Rome's view would necessarily denied any alternative but include both.

However, it is verse 11 that places the final nail in the coffin of Roman Catholicism. Here Paul deals with the very crux of Roman Catholicism and its sacramental system. Circumcision was the very first rite that introduced a Jew to a LIFE of obedience to God's ceremonial system and commandments. To be uncircumcised was the epitomy of an unclean and unrighteous personal life in the eyes of the Jew. On the other hand, the act of circumcision was the epitomy of personal righteousness and made ceremonial clean for a life of service to God. Hence, the real issue that Paul is setting before his readers is whether or not God justified an "ungodly" life (in uncircumcision) or only justified a life of godliness (in circumcision).

Rome clearly and explicitly and repeatedly states that circumcision was parallel to baptism in regard to its sacramental value. Hence, in application to the doctrine of sacramentalism Paul is asking if justification occurred in sacramentalism or outside sacramentalism. Paul's answer repudiates Roman Catholocism at its very core.

Also, Paul clearly and explicitly states that circumcision is nothing more than an external "sign" (symbol) and thus an external "seal" of of the righteousness of justification by faith already "had" while "uncircumcised" and thus in application to Rome's view of sacramentalism this would mean that justification and imputed righteousness occurred prior to any physical connection with baptism or any othe external rites.

Paul clearly and explicitly denies the time "when" justification occurs to be inclusive of the whole life of Abraham but restricted to the non-ceremonial aspect of his life and uses the Aorist tense translated "had" to show it occurred as a COMPLETED ACTION finished prior to the ceremonial aspect of his life. Romans 5:1-2 uses the Aorist along with the Perfect tense to shown this is a completed finished action at the point of faith in the gospel (Rom. 4:24-25). This passage and its prinicples are a total and complete repudiation of Roman Catholocism at its very foundation.

 

Is this the response you mean? This is no response! This is simply avoiding the issue. Paul uses the Aorist tense showing that justification preceded the external sign as justification did not occur "IN circumcision but IN uncircumcision." This response directly asserts what Paul clearly denies!

 

Here are some points that no Roman Catholic can repudiate successfully:

1. The content of Justification is spelled out in Romans 4:6-8 which includes remission of sins and imputed righteousness.

2. That is the "blessing" which makes the man a "blessed" man.

3. This blessing was obtained by Abraham NOT IN CIRCUMCISION and thus not in circumcision as a "sign" or as a "seal." - Period!

Thus Roman Catholicism in its core soteriological belief is repudiated completely.

 

the Roman Catholic dilemma with Romans 4-5:2 is that they must tie circumcision with justification in order to tie baptism with justification as they make circumcision under the Old Testament parallel to baptism under the New Testament but Paul denies any such literal connection.

Indeed, Paul's words "NOT in circumcision but IN uncircumision" repudiates any attempt to move justification within the sphere of circumcision by any kind of literal connection or else the words "NOT in circumcision" are rendered void.

Moreover, the Aorist tense verb "justified" demonstrates a completed action "in uncircumcision" while the perfect tense "stand" in Romans 5:2 shows that the only continuance beyond the intial completed actionof justification "in circumcision" is the perfected state of grace rather than any kind of justification that stands in need of completion.

In order to confuse readers and in order to get around these grammatical and logical obstacles to Roman Catholic soteriology Roman Catholic exegetes fail to accuratley portray the logical developed argument in Romans 4:1-5:2.

However, the careful reader can easily see that Romans 4:1-3 introduces Abraham as the illustration with the declaration there can be no boasting in justification by faith, whereas, Romans 4:4-5 deals with abstract doctrinal principle to reinforce the assertion that justification by faith provides no basis for boasting. In verses 4-5 which is the abstract doctrinal assertion, the verbs "believeth.....justifieth....imputeth" are all found in the present tense showing identical action with each other but in direct appliation to none other but "the ungodly" demonstrating that such action are not consequences of imparted godliness or else that person could not be regarded as "ungodly."

In Romans 4:6-8 Paul appeals to the Psalmist to define the two necessary elements required for any sinner to be justified before God - imputed righteousness and remission of sins. Then in Romans 4:9 Paul begins the process of elmination whereby he eliminates various things that some would include in defining justification which concludes in Romans 4:22 followed by His application in Romans 4:23-25 and conclusion in Romans 5:1-2.

In Romans 4:9-22 Paul eliminates sacramentalism (vv. 9-13); law keeping (vv. 14-15) and any definition of faith that includes any kind of assistance or participation on the part of the justified (vv. 16-22).

The Roman exegete and every argument and conclusion they provide will always contradict four immutable contextual factors.

1. Interpret justification so that it occurs "IN circumcison"
2. Deny the Aorist tense completed action "in uncircumcision"
3. Include what Paul excluded by elmination in vv. 9-22
4. Make Justification the consequence of imparted godliness instead of application to the "ungodly."