Romans 4:16 - not only - but also...

[dragonfly]

Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham,

or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. ​

14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace;

to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; ​

not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; ​

who is the father of us all, ​

Would anyone care to explain the second highlighted reference to 'the law', in Romans 4:16?

 

[Trekson]

Hi Dragonfly, Here's my input.

Rom. 4:16 - "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; (all those who believe by faith) not to that only which is of the law,(the Israelites) but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; (all Israelites and Gentiles who accept by faith what Christ has done and who He is) who is the father of us all."

Rom. 4:22-23 -(NIV) "This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” [sup]23 [/sup]The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, [sup]24 [/sup]but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead."

 

[Episkopos]

Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham,

or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. ​

14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace;

to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; ​

not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; ​

who is the father of us all, ​

Would anyone care to explain the second highlighted reference to 'the law', in Romans 4:16?

Circumcision

 

[dragonfly]

Thanks, Trekson. :)

Circumcision

Made with hands?

 

[Episkopos]

Thanks, Trekson. :)




Made with hands?

Yes..Romans 4 is about the unnecessariness of circumcision to be children of Abraham. The law of circumcision to be God's people was a sign that originated by the faith of Abraham. So Gentiles don't need circumcision for justification...just the same quality of faith as Abraham.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Episkopos,

Yes..Romans 4 is about the unnecessariness of circumcision to be children of Abraham. The law of circumcision to be God's people was a sign that originated by the faith of Abraham. So Gentiles don't need circumcision for justification...just the same quality of faith as Abraham.

Great reply! :)

So, Paul could just have said something about circumcision. Why did he mention those 'of the law' receiving the promise v 13?

 

[Episkopos]

Hi Episkopos,



Great reply! :)

So, Paul could just have said something about circumcision. Why did he mention those 'of the law' receiving the promise v 13?

The glory of Judaism is the Torah and the laws it contains....they are the people of the Book (bible). This law demarcates them as holy and distinct from all other people. All others (Gentiles)are seen as lawless and lost. NOT holy!

Becoming Christian does not mean we join them (the Jews) in the same type of holiness which is by the law. We are made holy through grace by faith. This holiness is the purpose of our salvation. So we are given time to mature in this holiness so that we can be made conformable to Christ as His bride.

A Christian does not learn holiness from the torah as the Jews do. Rather, a Christian is wise to learn about righteousness from the OT scriptures. This WAS the bible for the early church.

Rather, we take on holiness by putting on the new man which is created in Christ for us to walk in.


So the law of righteousness is a gauge for how we are actually walking. We are to walk in a fashion (in Christ) that SURPASSES the law of righteousness. We do this through abiding in Christ and having HIM fulfill the law of righteousness through us. In THIS way we are become the righteousness of Christ through He who empowers to through His grace.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Episkopos,

Are you saying that Jewish/Israelite Christians are holy in a different way from Gentile Christians? (Please clarify. Thanks)

Or, did what you wrote morph from one topic to another, accidentally?

All others (Gentiles)are seen as lawless and lost. NOT holy!

The only way that could have changed in the days before Christ, was if they became circumcised. Right?

Becoming Christian does not mean we join them (the Jews) in the same type of holiness which is by the law.

If the Mosaic Law was brought to an end in Christ Jesus... then Jews can no longer be in any way 'holy' 'by the law'.
In my view, it is necessary to make a very clear division in our thinking, between the separation between Jews and Gentiles which was authorised by the Mosaic Law, and that which has been continued since, under the bloodless system currently called Rabbinic Judaism.

We are made holy through grace by faith. This holiness is the purpose of our salvation.

Surely this is the purpose of salvation for all Israelites, too?

A Christian does not learn holiness from the torah as the Jews do.

A Christian is not made holy by studying the law, but there is a much good to be learned from studying the law.

we take on holiness by putting on the new man which is created in Christ for us to walk in.

Yes. I want you to know that I agree with this, and there is an internal holiness which comes from being singlehearted towards the Lord, and walking in the Spirit, allowing grace to be effective in us.

So the law of righteousness is a gauge for how we are actually walking.

Now.... haz would say the 'law of righteousness' is the Mosaic Law, quoting Romans 9:31, even though v 30 states clearly that 'the law of righteousness' can be obtained by faith. So... for the avoidance of doubt I ask, which 'law of righteousness' are you calling 'a gauge'? And, since Paul doesn't indicate that the law of righteousness can be surpassed (in Romans 9:30, 31) do you have scripture for this claim?

We are to walk in a fashion (in Christ) that SURPASSES the law of righteousness.

I can see this -

We do this through abiding in Christ and having HIM fulfill the law of righteousness through us. In THIS way we are become the righteousness of Christ through He who empowers to through His grace.

is how we may claim that our righteousnes exceeds that of the Pharisees. Matt 5:20.

 

[Episkopos]

Hi Episkopos,

Are you saying that Jewish/Israelite Christians are holy in a different way from Gentile Christians? (Please clarify. Thanks)

Or, did what you wrote morph from one topic to another, accidentally?

No ....there is no longer a difference between Jews and Gentiles...the temple holiness has been abolished with the coming of Messiah and true holiness.

I was speaking from the Jewish point of view.

The only way that could have changed in the days before Christ, was if they became circumcised. Right?

Correct! They did have a catagory of Gentile God-fearers....who would be seen as righteous but not holy.

If the Mosaic Law was brought to an end in Christ Jesus... then Jews can no longer be in any way 'holy' 'by the law'.
In my view, it is necessary to make a very clear division in our thinking, between the separation between Jews and Gentiles which was authorised by the Mosaic Law, and that which has been continued since, under the bloodless system currently called Rabbinic Judaism.

The temple is gone...therefore Judaism is gone. Rabbinic Judaism is based only in righteousness. It has become just one more religion of the world.

Surely this is the purpose of salvation for all Israelites, too?

All who walk in Christ are Isrealites.

A Christian is not made holy by studying the law, but there is a much good to be learned from studying the law.

We learn righteousness from the torah...you don't yet understand this fully. :)

Yes. I want you to know that I agree with this, and there is an internal holiness which comes from being singlehearted towards the Lord, and walking in the Spirit, allowing grace to be effective in us.

We are made holy by carrying holiness in us. If the root is holy then so is the branch.

Now.... haz would say the 'law of righteousness' is the Mosaic Law, quoting Romans 9:31, even though v 30 states clearly that 'the law of righteousness' can be obtained by faith. So... for the avoidance of doubt I ask, which 'law of righteousness' are you calling 'a gauge'? And, since Paul doesn't indicate that the law of righteousness can be surpassed (in Romans 9:30, 31) do you have scripture for this claim?

Righteousness is always doing what is right. If a person is thirsting then the right thing to do is to give them a drink. Surpassing this is to give them living water where they need never thirst again. Like Jesus said to the Samaritan woman.



I can see this -

is how we may claim that our righteousnes exceeds that of the Pharisees. Matt 5:20.

There are 2 levels to surpassing the Pharisees in righteousness. The obvious one is the higher one of walking in the presence of God through the Spirit. The other one...most Christians don't understand at all. It is just being honest about your reality....not claiming to see when you don't. HUMILITY IS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Episkopos,

Thanks again for your replies.

You said

They did have a catagory of Gentile God-fearers....who would be seen as righteous but not holy.

These had been circumcised, baptised and made a certain sacrifice in order to be admitted to Israel. There was a disciple called Simon the Canaanite who appears to have been considered just as much Israel as the others, as had been proselytes since Sinai under Moses.

So, do you have scriptures for your statement?

What about Exo 12:48, Lev 19:34, Lev 22:18, Lev 25:23, Josh 8:35, 2 Chron 2:17, Ezek 47:22, John 21:11, Mark 1:17 ?

Rabbinic Judaism is based only in righteousness.

By righteousness, do you mean 'good' works of the flesh? They are not making any blood sacrifices to cover their sins, so how can God acknowledge it at all? They deny, or are in ignorance, that their Messiah has come. They are going about to establish their own righteousness, Rom 10:3 not God's. How is this in any way acceptable to God for anything other than their condemnation - because they are Israelites?

We learn righteousness from the torah...you don't yet understand this fully. :)

You are too right (no pun intended!) but I've learned a great many other things from the Torah.

There are 2 levels to surpassing the Pharisees in righteousness. The obvious one is the higher one of walking in the presence of God through the Spirit. The other one...most Christians don't understand at all. It is just being honest about your reality....not claiming to see when you don't. HUMILITY IS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Now that I've looked into the self-circumcision of the heart which God required in the wilderness, I can see there is a basic level of honesty, meekness and humility towards God which pleases HIm - a primitive rawness and openness - but, that was not enough righteousness on its own. They still had to keep the law of Moses to be formally justified in God's sight. (Your publican was already keeping the law of Moses. Jesus just picked out the difference between the two men based on the known requirements for circumcision of the heart, in that era.)

If proud, hypocritical, dishonest Pharisees became circumcised in heart, they would still not be 'righteous', apart from the law of Moses.

Under the New Covenant, there is the same requirement for honesty, meekness and humility, and repentance. God sees to it that we still deal with self-circumcision, whether before or after new birth, and whether associated with repentance or the renewing of the mind or worked into us through other circumstances, but only Christ is made to us righteousness. Today, both Israelites and Gentiles who approach God through Christ, must acknowledge we have no 'righteousness' of our own - even with a self-circumcised heart - I believe. Isa 64:6.

 

[Episkopos]

Hi Episkopos,

Thanks again for your replies.

You said



These had been circumcised, baptised and made a certain sacrifice in order to be admitted to Israel. There was a disciple called Simon the Canaanite who appears to have been considered just as much Israel as the others, as had been proselytes since Sinai under Moses.

So, do you have scriptures for your statement?

A God-fearer was was a class below proselyte. Someone like the centurion would be seen as a God-fearer. Many of the new disciples were drawn from Gentile God fearers in the synagogues. This of course enraged the Jews.


Luk 7:2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
Luk 7:3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
Luk 7:4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
Luk 7:5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.




W

hat about Exo 12:48, Lev 19:34, Lev 22:18, Lev 25:23, Josh 8:35, 2 Chron 2:17, Ezek 47:22, John 21:11, Mark 1:17 ?

By righteousness, do you mean 'good' works of the flesh? They are not making any blood sacrifices to cover their sins, so how can God acknowledge it at all? They deny, or are in ignorance, that their Messiah has come. They are going about to establish their own righteousness, Rom 10:3 not God's. How is this in any way acceptable to God for anything other than their condemnation - because they are Israelites?

Good works done while in the flesh are not seen as works of the flesh...notice this..

Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD.

A righteous man's acts cease to be righteousness for him when they are used for self-justification. This does not take away from the truth that a good work is a good work.

Eze 33:13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.


Notice that even a man who is condemned for self righteousness ....God still considers his previous works as righteousnesses! This is the biblical and godly way of seeing these things.

You are too right (no pun intended!) but I've learned a great many other things from the Torah.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Notice it does not say "instruction in holiness". The OT holiness was overthrown at the time of Paul's writing.

Now that I've looked into the self-circumcision of the heart which God required in the wilderness, I can see there is a basic level of honesty, meekness and humility towards God which pleases HIm - a primitive rawness and openness - but, that was not enough righteousness on its own. They still had to keep the law of Moses to be formally justified in God's sight. (Your publican was already keeping the law of Moses. Jesus just picked out the difference between the two men based on the known requirements for circumcision of the heart, in that era.)

Heart circumcision is again about holiness....God was provoking them to seek Him for this holiness...which only became possible through Christ.

If proud, hypocritical, dishonest Pharisees became circumcised in heart, they would still not be 'righteous', apart from the law of Moses.

I don't follow your reasoning here.

Under the New Covenant, there is the same requirement for honesty, meekness and humility, and repentance. God sees to it that we still deal with self-circumcision, whether before or after new birth, and whether associated with repentance or the renewing of the mind or worked into us through other circumstances, but only Christ is made to us righteousness. Today, both Israelites and Gentiles who approach God through Christ, must acknowledge we have no 'righteousness' of our own - even with a self-circumcised heart - I believe. Isa 64:6.

OK...first...no man has ever been able to self-circumcise his own heart. This can only be done with God's hands.

Col. 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

No man can DO the circumcision of Christ to Himself...that is why it is called the circumcision of CHRIST! :)

It is impossible for a man to establish his own righteousness...it is like competing to see who is more humble...the whole exercise is proud by definition. So we don't seek to justify ourselves.

The spin-off of holiness is supposed to be righteousness...I say supposed to be!!!!

Many Christians fall into the same trap as the Pharisees. They declare themselves righteous because of their beliefs. The foolhardiness of this is monumental. I say that someone who does this has no faith. How can someone who is standing before God justify himself for any reason??? FAITH waits on the Lord to judge what is right.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Episkopos, :)

Good works done while in the flesh are not seen as works of the flesh...notice this..

Jer 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD.

A righteous man's acts cease to be righteousness for him when they are used for self-justification. This does not take away from the truth that a good work is a good work.

Eze 33:13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.


Notice that even a man who is condemned for self righteousness ....God still considers his previous works as righteousnesses! This is the biblical and godly way of seeing these things.

All these examples are under the Mosaic law. That's why those good works are not works of the flesh - because they have a spiritual context which was being honoured by the doer.

Just like in many of our discussions in other threads, the good works we are recommending are in the context of the New Covenant - those which our Father requires of us individually to fulfil His will for our lives - the works prepared for us from the foundation of the world.

But should we do any other works, not authorised by God, the very least that will happen is they will be burned up one day, and the worst that can happen is they turn out to be so far from His will, He doesn't acknowledge us at all. The works that we do while walking in the Spirit, are entirely bound up with our individual salvation. Whereas under Moses law, the nation was considered a unit, although individual's attitudes and behaviour had much to do with the outcome of their lives.

Notice it does not say "instruction in holiness". The OT holiness was overthrown at the time of Paul's writing.

I would prefer to say it had been superseded by the New Covenant, in which everyone of us is a priest, part of a holy priesthood if we are functioning as we should.

Heart circumcision is again about holiness....God was provoking them to seek Him for this holiness...which only became possible through Christ.

I don't believe God ever asked them to do something they couldn't do. If He said 'Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts', then it was possible by His grace. And we know it was possible because of the change in Moses, from being a strong young man who could easily kill someone, to an older man who was the most meek in the whole earth. That's some transformation; and it's the kind of attitudinal change that God wanted from all the Israelites.

Then we have the famous, 'If my people will humble themselves...' God is not offering to humble them in the first instance, although He has done and will do. His first choice is that the person humble himself, presumably because it saves time and pain on the part of the one in need of humility. These, and repentance - contrition - seem to be the elements of circumcision of heart which people can do for themselves. It is not righteousness. It is not holiness. It is more to do with a global reality check and a repositioning of oneself under God, instead of ... well.... self.

(In the passing let me mention there are things we have to do for ourselves in the New Covenant, too.)

Quote dragonfly

If proud, hypocritical, dishonest Pharisees became circumcised in heart, they would still not be 'righteous', apart from the law of Moses.

Ek
I don't follow your reasoning here.

Well, if we're talking about Pharisees, we are also under the law of Moses.

My point is that no-one has their sins dealt with by self-circumcision of their heart alone, in the way that the circumcision of Christ is to do with the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh Col 2:11, 12. But, it is an aspect of whole-hearted submission to God, which pleases Him, (but doesn't fix the sin problem).

I would not attribute any kind of righteousness to those whose hearts they themselves have circumcised, because it is no more than was expected - a bit like the unprofitable servant..... The righteousness which came through keeping the Mosaic law, perhaps with a more mournful attitude towards one's own sins, would have pleased God, but can hardly be called 'righteousness'. That's what I had in mind.

The spin-off of holiness is supposed to be righteousness.

And as far as the Mosaic law went, there was a variety of holiness defined by God through certain procedures, which led to a variety of righteousness.

I fully agree that the circumcision of Christ gets to the heart of the problem of sin, and transforms a person into one who can walk in the Spirit, not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, and not fulfilling the lusts of the mind. And after we have obeyed the Lord in every thing He asks of us, we, too, are unprofitable servants. But at last we are not serving sin any more.... Romans 6:16, Romans 7:4.

 

[Episkopos]

Hi Episkopos, :)



All these examples are under the Mosaic law. That's why those good works are not works of the flesh - because they have a spiritual context which was being honoured by the doer.

Was God also under the Mosaic law??? I think you are a closet dispensationalist at times D.

I will have to only cite scriptures BEFORE Moses so that you don't jump to the same conclusion all the time.

You fail to understand that God's ways have never changed.

Just like in many of our discussions in other threads, the good works we are recommending are in the context of the New Covenant - those which our Father requires of us individually to fulfil His will for our lives - the works prepared for us from the foundation of the world.

Of course....but you are looking at the OT as a whole through a Mosaic dispensational lens. God has never been limited to men...but you are losing the instruction in righteousness that Paul says we should seek.

But should we do any other works, not authorised by God, the very least that will happen is they will be burned up one day, and the worst that can happen is they turn out to be so far from His will, He doesn't acknowledge us at all. The works that we do while walking in the Spirit, are entirely bound up with our individual salvation. Whereas under Moses law, the nation was considered a unit, although individual's attitudes and behaviour had much to do with the outcome of their lives.

You are arguing with yourself here. I have never advocated following the Mosaic law....it is done away with in Christ. Are you being influenced by Richard Burger?

I would prefer to say it had been superseded by the New Covenant, in which everyone of us is a priest, part of a holy priesthood if we are functioning as we should.

The let it be as you prefer....

I don't believe God ever asked them to do something they couldn't do. If He said 'Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts', then it was possible by His grace. And we know it was possible because of the change in Moses, from being a strong young man who could easily kill someone, to an older man who was the most meek in the whole earth. That's some transformation; and it's the kind of attitudinal change that God wanted from all the Israelites.

Meekness and humility are a product of godly character...not circumcision of the heart. You are still trying to fit round pegs in square holes. ;)

Then we have the famous, 'If my people will humble themselves...' God is not offering to humble them in the first instance, although He has done and will do. His first choice is that the person humble himself, presumably because it saves time and pain on the part of the one in need of humility. These, and repentance - contrition - seem to be the elements of circumcision of heart which people can do for themselves. It is not righteousness. It is not holiness. It is more to do with a global reality check and a repositioning of oneself under God, instead of ... well.... self.

(In the passing let me mention there are things we have to do for ourselves in the New Covenant, too.)

I won't touch this since it comes from a personal stance from a private interpretation/

Well, if we're talking about Pharisees, we are also under the law of Moses.

This makes no sense... to me at any rate.

My point is that no-one has their sins dealt with by self-circumcision of their heart alone, in the way that the circumcision of Christ is to do with the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh Col 2:11, 12. But, it is an aspect of whole-hearted submission to God, which pleases Him, (but doesn't fix the sin problem).

I would not attribute any kind of righteousness to those whose hearts they themselves have circumcised, because it is no more than was expected - a bit like the unprofitable servant..... The righteousness which came through keeping the Mosaic law, perhaps with a more mournful attitude towards one's own sins, would have pleased God, but can hardly be called 'righteousness'. That's what I had in mind.



A

nd as far as the Mosaic law went, there was a variety of holiness defined by God through certain procedures, which led to a variety of righteousness.

I fully agree that the circumcision of Christ gets to the heart of the problem of sin, and transforms a person into one who can walk in the Spirit, not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, and not fulfilling the lusts of the mind. And after we have obeyed the Lord in every thing He asks of us, we, too, are unprofitable servants. But at last we are not serving sin any more.... Romans 6:16, Romans 7:4.

Now you are mumbling...a variety???? Is the bible a variety of book? I can't follow your thinking...it is rambling.

The Psalms were written at a time when the Mosaic law was in effect for Israel...BUT the psalms are not talking about the Mosaic law! The prophets including Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah ARE NOT prophesying about the Mosaic law.

The NT is in the OT concealed and the OT is in the NT revealed.

I will say this plainly....the NT is not founded on a foundation of the Mosaic law.

I think there is a spiritual virus spreading on this forum that seeks to belittle the very words of God and call them obsolete.

Since Jesus was mostly re-iterating torah when He spoke can we safely ignore HIm as preaching the Mosaic law? What of the apostles who also mainly taught from the Scriptures that were written during the time of the Mosaic law??? Can we ignore them also? In other words is using a calendar the chief way to look at the bible???

 

[epouraniois]

Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham,

or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. ​

14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace;

to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; ​

not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; ​

who is the father of us all, ​

Would anyone care to explain the second highlighted reference to 'the law', in Romans 4:16?

Of course the law references the Jews during the Acts when each and every Hebrew person by kinsmanship received a bonified miracle.
Of course All Israel heard the message
Of course they did not repent
Of course God had a plan to get their attention in a big way.

God used non Jews (Gentiles) during the Acts, during the time of the outpouring of the Spirit onto the Hebrew people.

Of course, Paul goes around quoting all this fact to his people whom he loved dearly.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

And Paul spends nearly 3 chapters explaining how gentiles were to be used only for the purpose of provoking Israel to bear the fruit of repentance, but she did not, as the above quote shows, then at the very end of Acts, Paul, a prisoner in bonds 'for the hope of Israel', quotes Isa. again:

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Act 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

With the added shock phrase never before heard in Scripture:

Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Those gentiles during Acts are counted among the overcomers, having their hope and calling in resurrection glory enjoyed in the heavenly city, which is better, speaks of better things, a better resurrection, etc, all quotes of course.

The gentiles, having the faith of Abraham, never knowing the Scriptures and certainly not surrounded and trained for centuries in the presence of miracles, believed and are counted among those in the list of Heb 11.

 

[Netchaplain]

"Not to that only which is of the law" (Rom 4:16 KJV); or, "not only to those who are of the law" (NKJV); meaning those coming out of the law. The Jews, who are said to be of the law (v 14), in distinction to the Gentiles who were without it. This designs the Jewish Christians who became believers in Christ, to whom the Gospel was the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16).

 

[dragonfly]

Hello again Episkopos :)

I really do thank you for trying to get your head a tiny bit round the way I've come to see things. I think that makes us all square in the communication stakes.

Was God also under the Mosaic law??? I think you are a closet dispensationalist at times D.

I will have to only cite scriptures BEFORE Moses so that you don't jump to the same conclusion all the time.

You fail to understand that God's ways have never changed.

I know God doesn't change, but there is a world of difference between sending a devastating flood over the whole earth to kill everyone except those in a rather large ship, and, the sacrificial system which was formalised through God's instructions to Moses, where instead of each man being the priest in his own family, an entire nation was brought under one priesthood, whose ministry dealt with sin partially, through shedding of blood.

I don't know what you mean about God being under the Mosaic law. By the giving of the Mosaic law, God bound Himself to its limitations with respect to His dealings with Israel about sin.

Of course....but you are looking at the OT as a whole through a Mosaic dispensational lens. God has never been limited to men...but you are losing the instruction in righteousness that Paul says we should seek.

There is much OT scripture from which to learn, apart from the law. 2 Tim 3:16. The reason I've mentioned the Mosaic law is because it was a massive reality to the characters you've used as examples. There is also instruction in righteousness in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the NT writers, too.

To me, it's important to distinguish between the two contexts, because of the sin element which either has not, or has been, dealt with in the life of the person you are giving as an example. On the one hand, a Christian has no original righteousness of his own, and on the other, you are claiming that those who were under the law, did have a form of righteousness - despite Isaiah's comparison with 'filthy rags'.

You are arguing with yourself here. I have never advocated following the Mosaic law....it is done away with in Christ. Are you being influenced by Richard Burger?

I'm glad you said this, because it just shows how little we have succeeded in direct communication with each other. I am not suggesting you have advocated following the Mosaic law, and I am not advocating Christians should keep the Mosaic law either. I know it is done away with in Christ.

But it is precisely because of the differences between the two eras in respect of sin and righteousness, that I have not been able to make any sense of your examples. However, this thread is about the mention of 'law' in Rom 4:16, and so, of particular interest to me, is, just exactly of whom, and why, Paul is mentioning it.

Meekness and humility are a product of godly character...not circumcision of the heart.

So, what was the source and quality of Moses' meekness, seeing he didn't have the indwelling Spirit?

You are still trying to fit round pegs in square holes.

There are several places in scripture where we, the people, are told to do certain things for ourselves.... too many to ignore them all as 'impossible'. The following is not a comprehensive list (probably), but it shows us that both God and the apostles divided the responsibility for our pleasing Him partly to us:

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

Jude 1:20, 21 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

1 Peter 5:5, 6, 1 Peter 2:13, James 4:7, 10, Hebrews 13:17, 2 Thess 3:6, 1 Thess 5:11, Eph 2:21, 2 Cor 13:5, Rom 12:19, Rom 6:11, 13, 14, Acts 15:29, Acts 2:40, Luke 12:33, Jer 4:4, Josh 3:5

I won't touch this since it comes from a personal stance from a private interpretation

As you like.

I would not attribute any kind of righteousness to those whose hearts they themselves have circumcised, because it is no more than was expected - a bit like the unprofitable servant..... The righteousness which came through keeping the Mosaic law, perhaps with a more mournful attitude towards one's own sins, would have pleased God, but can hardly be called 'righteousness'. That's what I had in mind.

Sounds like we agree on something!

Now you are mumbling...a variety???? Is the bible a variety of book? I can't follow your thinking...it is rambling.

Well that particular comment about variety, was my attempt to lock on to what you're trying to tell me about righteousness using characters who dwelt under the Old Covenant, as examples. You never mention that their righteousness according to Isaiah was 'as filthy rags', and I find that quite confusing....

​

The Psalms were written at a time when the Mosaic law was in effect for Israel...BUT the psalms are not talking about the Mosaic law! The prophets including Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah ARE NOT prophesying about the Mosaic law.

The NT is in the OT concealed and the OT is in the NT revealed.

I will say this plainly....the NT is not founded on a foundation of the Mosaic law.

I think there is a spiritual virus spreading on this forum that seeks to belittle the very words of God and call them obsolete.

Since Jesus was mostly re-iterating torah when He spoke can we safely ignore HIm as preaching the Mosaic law? What of the apostles who also mainly taught from the Scriptures that were written during the time of the Mosaic law??? Can we ignore them also? In other words is using a calendar the chief way to look at the bible???

The point I'm trying to make about the Mosaic law is that the people who kept it had a different standing with God than those who didn't keep it. And that the backdrop of the law meant there was a remedy for sin, albeit limited and external, which totally affects any definition of righteousness which can be applied to them in light of the righteousness of Christ.

While I can recognise the shadow of righteousness in the law, and that those who did the decent thing humanly speaking or obeyed God from the heart can be credited with an imperfect righteousness, we both know that until sin was dealt with on the cross, it was impossible for them to experience righteousness and do righteousness in the way that those who believe in Christ do - with a conscience completely cleared.

I will say this plainly....the NT is not founded on a foundation of the Mosaic law.

But they are very connected, and the Mosaic law was an integral part of preparing Israel for Messiah.



You probably felt that you were repeating yourself all the way through your reply to me, and I feel I have too, but, are you now any clearer about my confusion?

Hi NetChaplain,

"Not to that only which is of the law" (Rom 4:16 KJV); or, "not only to those who are of the law" (NKJV); meaning those coming out of the law. The Jews, who are said to be of the law (v 14), in distinction to the Gentiles who were without it. This designs the Jewish Christians who became believers in Christ, to whom the Gospel was the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16).

If as you suggest, the reference to law applies only to newly converted Jewish Christians, are you saying that 'all the seed' only applies to those Jews who have become Christians?

Shouldn't it apply to everyone descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob?

Romans 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

 

[Episkopos]

Hi D.

Let me ask you this...

Why did God destroy the world (save for those in the ark) in the great flood?

Why did God wish to save Noah?

 

[Netchaplain]

Hi Dragonfly and God's blessings to your Family!

"For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). Only the Jewish Christians are counted as "Abraham's seed". "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children" (v 7). "That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (v 8). The children of the promise are those, not just because of the blood lineage of Abraham, but who are "of the faith of Abraham" (Rom 6:14). Righteousness was accounted to Abraham for believing God would give him a son (Isaac), and for offering his son Isaac to God, He inherited the promise; which was prior to the giving of the Law.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi NetChaplain,

Thank you for the prayer for blessings. :)


Clearly, Israelites who believed in Christ are counted as being 'of the faith of Abraham', along with Gentiles who believe in Christ. This accords with

Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


You will see in the thread title 'not only' 'but also', which are taken from the verse.

the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham;

According to your interpretation, only those who lived from the time of Christ onwards are going to receive the promise, even though Paul makes clear that 'all the seed' are going to receive it, and only some of them are 'of the faith of Abraham'.

Any further thoughts?

Further to post #16, James 1:27.

Hi Episkopos,

Hi D.

Let me ask you this...

Why did God destroy the world (save for those in the ark) in the great flood?

Why did God wish to save Noah?

Genesis 6:5 - 8 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9b '... Noah was a just man perfect in his generations, Noah walked with God.'

 

[Episkopos]

Hi NetChaplain,

Thank you for the prayer for blessings. :)


Clearly, Israelites who believed in Christ are counted as being 'of the faith of Abraham', along with Gentiles who believe in Christ. This accords with

Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


You will see in the thread title 'not only' 'but also', which are taken from the verse.

the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham;

According to your interpretation, only those who lived from the time of Christ onwards are going to receive the promise, even though Paul makes clear that 'all the seed' are going to receive it, and only some of them are 'of the faith of Abraham'.

Any further thoughts?

Further to post #16, James 1:27.

Hi Episkopos,



Genesis 6:5 - 8 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9b '... Noah was a just man perfect in his generations, Noah walked with God.'

Great verses! ;)