1 2 3 4 5 6 7

More on Romans 4:

It is important to note that in Romans 4 Paul is teaching that Abraham was Justified by means of the New Covenant of grace, which, because of Christ's anticipated sacrifice, could stretch all the way back to the time of Abraham and beyond, in order to save men. That is why, for example, Hebrews 11:4-7 mentions the prominent saints of old, beginning with Abel and Enoch and Noah, who were saved by faith -- the faith required by the New Covenant in Christ. It is the same reason that Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt," or why 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that of those who left Egypt "a spiritual rock followed them; and that rock was Christ." The only way anyone was justified in the Old Covenant was on the basis of what Christ would do in the New Covenant.

On the other hand, the circumcision Paul mentions in Romans 4:9-12, and the circumcision in which Abraham and his progeny received, represent the Old Covenant, a covenant of law which had no power to save anyone.

We see the same truth in Romans 9:31-32:

31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone..."

Again, the antithesis Paul sets up is one of "faith versus works," or as we have seen before, "grace versus works." The antithesis is not "Jew versus Gentile." The Jew versus Gentile antithesis is only a subset of the main issue, grace versus works.

We know this to be the case also from the context. In Romans 10:5-8 Paul cites Deut 30:12. In the context, Deut 30:8 says, "And you shall again obey the Lord, and observe ALL HIS COMMANDMENTS, which I command you this day." Verse 10 says, "if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law." There is no singling out of the ceremonial law in this context, yet this is the passage Paul cites to explain the "Law" he had in view in Romans 9:32. Moreover, Deuteronomy 28-29 is the same reference to the Law that Paul cites in Galatians 3:10-12, a passage which refers to the whole Law of Moses. We will see more on this below.

That "grace versus works" is the main issue can be proven beyond much doubt as we see Paul explain the matter in Romans 11:1-6:

1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I along am left, and they are seeking my life." 4 But what is the divine response to him? "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Ball." 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Notice several things in these verses:

1) Paul continues the theme of "grace versus works" that he began in the early part of Romans. 2) We see by the context to which Paul appeals in Romans 11:1-5, which concerns the sin of the Jews in the eighth century BC during the time of Elijah, that the problem of Israel seeking God through their own works rather than through grace is not something that first became a problem in the first century AD when the Jews were mingling Gentiles. Moreover, as Paul looks back on Israel's notorious history, his concern is not "Jew versus Gentile" or "circumcision versus no circumcision." Rather, we see that the problem of Jews seeking God by their works was already occurring in the 8th century BC when almost all of Israel was bowing the knee to Baal. At that time there was only a "remnant" of believers chosen by grace, while the rest perished in their false works. And there were certainly no Gentiles to whom the Jews could boast of the graces they received from God.

We can also prove the point by what Paul says in Galatians 5:4:

"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

Notice, Paul is not viewing circumcision as an end in itself, or merely as a representation of the obsolete ritual ordinances of Israel. Paul is using circumcision as an example of how one puts himself under the WHOLE law. This is the same principle he used in Gal 3:10-12 in reference to the moral law; and James 2:10-13 in reference to the moral law; and Romans 5:20 in reference to the moral law. Obviously, it is not circumcision in itself that is the problem; rather, it is what circumcision does when one practices it illicitly – its puts him under the WHOLE LAW and thus condemns him.

Who will deny that it was the Judaizers who fit Paul's description of "you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace"? This again proves the point that the Judizers were out of the grace of God and were seeking to be justified by works of the law, not within the grace of God and needing to be taught to share it with Gentiles.

Finally, let's go back to Galatians 2:16

"...nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."

The words "nevertheless knowing" should really be "nevertheless having known," since the verb is a Greek perfect participle (eijdovteV de; oJvti). This means that the knowledge was something known in the past and continues to be known in the future. Moreover, the verb is a plural, which means that the knowledge is privy to both Paul and the Jews. Hence, they know already that a man is not justified by works of the law.

Now let's back up a bit. In verses 14-15 Paul says:

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;

Now, because Paul speaks of "compelling Gentiles to live like Jews," some apologists automatically assume that the "works of the law" in verse 16 can only refer to circumcision and the ceremonial law, but here is where they make their biggest mistake.

If in Galatians 3:10-12 we have Paul stating what is "known" among the Jews about the Law, and that passage is clearly referring to more than the ceremonial law (as per Augustine, Aquinas, et al), then isn't what is "known" in Galatians 2:16 also of the same species? Certainly.

Thus, in Galatians 2:16, Paul is drawing on the Jews' previous knowledge that the Law, in toto, cannot justify a man. Since by using the plural verb form Paul is placing himself in the group of those who have "known," and we know from various other passages that what Paul has "known" is that the WHOLE law is that which convicts man and cannot justify him, then surely the Jews in that "plural" group do not have a different concept of the Law than Paul.

They will recognize that the Law, in toto, cannot justify, and thus, if they can see reason, they should also recognize that their attempts at forcing circumcision brings one back into the condemnation of that WHOLE law, which is precisely what Paul says in Galatians 5:3-4:

"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

So its not Judaizing, per se, that is the real issue. Its what Judaizing results in, that is, putting someone under the condemnation of the WHOLE law. Circumcision doesn't convict anyone of sin. It is the whole Law which convicts, and circumcision puts one under the whole Law.

Help from James

We can prove the above point concerning Galatians 2:16 by looking at the way James speaks of the Law in James 2:8-13 to the New Testament Christians. He tells them that if they don't show love to the poor man, then they will take themselves out of the mercy of God and put themselves under the Law. If they are put under the Law, they will have to obey the WHOLE Law, without fault, or they will be condemned.

Isn't this exactly what Paul said to the Galatians in Galatians 5:3-4 that I cited above? The only difference is that in Galatians 5:3-4 circumcision is the catalyst which puts someone back under the Law, whereas in James 2:1-13 it is a lack of love.

The Gospels

We can also prove the point by looking out how the Gospels deal with the issue of Jewish unbelief. Never do the Gospels make a distinction between the ceremonial laws and the rest of the Mosaic laws. For example, in Matthew 12:8-14, the Pharisees are questioning whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Sabbath observance was the Third Commandment of the Decalogue. Jesus answers them by pointing out that David ate the Showbread, which was only lawful for the priests; and by pointing out that any of them would save his sheep if it fell into a ditch on the Sabbath. Having answered their challenge, Jesus then heals the man who was presented to him. The Pharisees then conspire to murder Jesus.

The point of the story is to show us that the Pharisees think it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, but perfectly lawful to plot the murder of Jesus! This shows that their problem was inner corruption. They were lovers of law, but haters of God and man. THAT is their problem, not merely "being Jewish." There is no Jew/Gentile controversy in Matthew 12.

And this is precisely why Paul, in Romans 11:1-10, says that the Jewish problem of "works versus grace" stemmed all the way back to the time of Elijah in the eighth century BC, not merely when the Gentiles come on the scene in the first century AD.

Now, some might object that any self-respecting Rabbi would be forced to agree. Faith is the ground on which circumcision and all of the "works of the law" were based. A man who was physically circumsized and went through the motions of keeping the Law was no real Jew. The Rabbis themselves acknowledged that one should keep the commandments out of LOVE for God. Any other motive was unacceptable.

But, as noted previously, the problem was that "self-respecting" Rabbis were few and far between in the century leading up to Jesus' coming. If the "Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers" described by Jesus in the NT are any indication of the theological sentiment residing in the Rabbis, then there really wasn't a large contingent of Jewish leaders who would have prescribed to the above altruism.

This is an important point, since the Dunn, et al, hermeneutic attempt to make religious groups such as the Pharisees into a more or less respectful theological concern at the time of Jesus, rather than the scoundrels Jesus identifies them to be.

The only ones who aspire to the altruism described above (at least according to the NT) are people like Mary and Joseph, John the Baptist, Elizabeth and Zacharias (Luke 1:6), Nicodemus, and a few others. All the rest, by and large, were in unbelief, that is, they didn't have "faith" and did not understand the true purpose of the Law.

According to Paul, there was only a "remnant" who believed, and a "remnant" is a small portion of the whole. His example in Romans 11 is that out of a nation of a million+ people, there were only 7000 who weren't in unbelief. So, if they were in unbelief, what is the natural mentality they are going to adopt? Its not going to be faith, its going to be what unbelief produces – a reliance on works.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7