Posted on 11/21/2014 1:51:03 PM PST by Gamecock
What is it that solves the problem of our sins? “A righteousness of (from) God has been manifested apart from the law…through faith in Jesus Christ” (3:21-22). Luther referred to these verses as “the center of the whole Bible.” Martin Lloyd Jones called it “the most important and crucial passage in the whole of Scripture.” Leon Morris said it is “possibly the most important single paragraph ever written.”
As I mentioned in a prior post here, I have been teaching a weekly Bible study on the book of Romans to women in the Charlotte community. For the last several months, we have been plodding our way through the first three chapters as Paul has laid out his case that all mankind–Jew and Gentile–are sinful and rightly under the judgment of God. Paul finishes this section of his letter with this monumental statement: “For by works of the Law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Rom 3:20).
You can almost hear the gavel fall with a boom.
Thankfully, Paul does not end his letter here. This morning, in the last installment of the women’s study for the Fall term (we will resume in the new year), we will move onto to 3:21 and following. There Paul utters two of the most beautiful words in all of Scripture, “But now…” These two little words provide a great sigh of relief for any sin-wracked soul wondering about his fate.
“But now” tells us that something has been done to solve the problem of our sins.
What is it that solves the problem of our sins? “A righteousness of (from) God has been manifested apart from the law…through faith in Jesus Christ” (3:21-22). Luther referred to these verses as “the center of the whole Bible.” Martin Lloyd Jones called it “the most important and crucial passage in the whole of Scripture.” Leon Morris said it is “possibly the most important single paragraph ever written.”
This passage is the basis for the great Reformation doctrine of sola fide–the idea that we are saved by faith alone and not by the works of the law.
But, Paul makes a critical clarification here. He makes it clear that the righteous status we so desperately need comes through faith (v.22), but it is not the faith itself that is the grounds of our justification. The grounds of our justification–the reason God can declare us sinners to be righteous–is because of the righteousness of Christ given to us. He can regard us as righteous because a righteous status has been granted to us.
Thus, faith is merely the instrument or the means by which that righteous status is attained.
This is a critical reminder for Christians today. Whenever our world discusses religion, they will praise the merits of “faith” and laud people who possess it (think Oprah Winfrey). But, notice the world never praises the merits of the object of that faith. It doesn’t matter what you believe in (after all, all religions are the same), what matters is that you are sincerely committed.
For our world, then, faith is its own object.
Contrast that to what Paul is saying in Rom 3:21-22. Paul is saying that you are not saved because of faith (as if it were meritorious in itself) but you are saved through and by faith in Christ. The object of the faith is what is definitive.
So, the Reformed doctrine of sola fide does not mean what the world might think it means. For the world, it simply means that all you need is faith. For the Reformers, it meant faith is the sole instrument by which you acquire a righteous status in Christ (and thus not by works).
For those who doubt their faith and find their faith to be weak, this is a great encouragement. Our hope is not in how strong our faith is, but in how strong and righteous our Savior is.
Similar sentiment is echoed HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3228620/posts?page=154#154
Amen to this statement. It's not the quality of the Faith, it's the quality of Him who we have the Faith (even a mustard seed's worth) in.
Very good article, but, IMHO, “most important” cannot be assigned to a verse, or chapter, or book, or scribe in the Bible. Kind of like saying one part of the Body of Christ is more important than another.
IOW, Evangelical faith is a work.
Amen!! Thank you!
For example, the latest NIV gives the objective but with the subjective as an alternative--in other words, those translators lean toward the objective but are unsure; whereas the NET and ISV both use the subjective.
For a thorough investigation, please see The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies, edited by Bird & Sprinkle, Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
Thank you very much.
**By your reasoning Paul would have proclaimed baptism is part of the Gospel message. In 1Corinthians 15, he lays out the definition of the Gospel message. No baptism there.**
1Cor. 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”
First of all, as you know, the theme in chapter 15 is about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that if He has not risen, then no one else is going to see a resurrection. And all the baptisms are vain. Why be baptized into Christ (who died), and into his body of believers (many who have died), if Christ is not risen.
Furthermore, Paul is writing to persons that are already born again: “UNTO the CHURCH of God which is at Corinth, to THEM that are SANCTIFIED in Christ Jesus, CALLED to be SAINTS....”. 1Cor. 1:2
Paul indeed taught water baptism, making it clear that it wasn’t his sole mission (1:17), yet pointing out that he did baptize several personally (vss 14,16). The scriptures don’t go into detail about everyone’s converversion. Paul met Aquila and Priscilla, and there is no mention of their conversion, yet you know it surely happened, for they go on to witness to Apollos in Acts 18. Paul re-baptized certain disciples in Ephesus in Acts 19.
Note Paul’s own conversion: Ananias to Paul: “And why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
Philip taught the Acts 2:38 message: “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself was baptized also....Now when the apostles...heard...they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For AS YET, he was fallen on NONE OF THEM. ONLY they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:12-17
**Then we have Acts 10 with Peter and Cornelius. We see in this chapter Cornelius and household hear the Gospel, believe, then receive the Holy Spirit and are baptized AFTER.**
Below is a comparison of the conversion events in Acts 10, and the Acts 11 testamony of Peter, back in Jerusalem:
The Holy Ghost falls:
10:44 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.”
11:15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them...”
The witness:
10:45,46 “And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles ALSO was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God..”.
11:15 “..fell on them, AS ON US at the beginning.”
The declaration of that witness:
10:47 “...which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.”
11:17 “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did onto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ..”.
Did you notice that I left out the last three words of 10:46, and the first part of 10:47; and, that I left out the last part of 11:17?
That’s because there is a challenge given in both cases:
10:46,47 “..Then answered Peter. Can any man..” (including Peter himself) “..forbid water, that these should not be baptized...”.
11:17 “What was I, that I could withstand God?” (yes, I believe Peter was faced with God’s command of baptizing them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and HAD TO DO IT. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord...”. 10:48
It’s about a MAN being born again, of the water and the Spirit, as Jesus taught Nicodemas, in John 3.
Sure. By the way, the issue recurs in several Pauline passages, notably Gal. 2:15-16, Eph. 3:12, Php. 3:9, etc.
We've used those 'blessings' to kill off 57 MILLION of future Americans.
I doubt we'll be getting much of GOD's blessing until we repent and stop.
>> “Paul’s argument, which you rip out of its context even against your own assertion that we “ought to consider the writing as a whole,” is that no one is justified by the law.” <<
.
Straw?
I have never said that anyone can be justified by the law, so how do you apply this misunderstood and misstated assertion to any post that I have made?
Your take on Paul is not accurate. His point in the chapter is that it must come from the heart, which comes after receiving the knowledge.
All my points are absolutely accurate. The proof is that you didn't reply to any of them, but just said "your take on Paul is not accurate."
>> “As for Torah, you are referring, of course, to dietary laws, circumcision, feast days and other ritual laws. These are abrogated by name throughout scripture, all these jots and tittles, especially in Paul” <<
.
This is simply your misunderstanding, especially the items that you mix together.
I was refering to the entirety of Yeshua’s declaration, not truncating it 3000 years as to the duration of its effect.
Yeshua has not yet fulfilled anything but the Passover sacrifice, and the unsealing of First Fruits.
And, even though those events are fulfilled, we are still commanded to keep them along with the 5 other events that are not fulfilled. That is the message in Matthew 5:17-18.
“Circumcision” has multiple meanings in the NT. It can refer simply to the surgery, or to various manifestations of Judaism. In Galatians he was speaking of Judaism in general, not the surgery.
Nobody was ever “under the law” for salvation.
All were under the law for an accusation, but salvation has been by grace through belief, a condition of the heart, since Adam. This is well explained by Paul in Hebrews 3 and 4.
In Revelation 2 and 3, particularly and pointedly in 3:3, Yeshua is demanding that we do “the first things” (Torah) and “if we do not watch” (keep Yom Teruah) he will come as a thief.
You see, your wild assumptions of Yeshua endorsing iniquity are falling far short of reality.
>> “By your reasoning Paul would have proclaimed baptism is part of the Gospel message.” <<
.
That depends on what “baptism” means to you.
This is where the Greek words fall far short of the Hebrew. What is translated baptism, which is simply immersion in water to the Greek language, is really the Mikva, which is the whole process of repentance, which is punctuated at the point of full understanding and acceptance, by the new believer falling face first into a river, to symbolize the washing away of the sin nature.
To one of Yeshua’s apostles, it was truly a part of the gospel they preached.
.
Are you arguing that we are still under dietary laws, must observe ritual feasts, including Passover, circumcision, and all the other dictates of the Old Testament?
If so, how does that square with Paul and the Church Council in Acts 15?
It is not enough to just make assertions in my general direction. You have to actually respond to what I say and demonstrate how those verses don't say what they say.
This is one of the big errors of Pharisaic Judaism.
The feasts are the program, a calendar of sorts, of the future events we face, and provide awareness of where we are in God's time table, to be able to recognize among other things, the beginning of the “70th week,” and the midpoint thereof when Satan will be cast out of the presence of God.
The dietary instructions are not a punishment, but a path to good health. Yes there is some question as to the acceptability of certain animal flesh, emitting from Paul's statement to Timothy that “all creatures are good,” and since our relationship with Yeshua is based on the condition of our heart, I fail to see that as a “sin unto death” issue.
You must be one of those that missed the chief point that the Jerusalem council rested their difficult deliberations upon:
Acts 15:21 - For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
The fact that they were going to learn Torah a little at a time, every sabbath day, meant that no attempt to teach and require the whole of Torah at once was a proper approach.
The apostles didn't learn all on one day, it took all of their lives, so why should the new converts be different?
Finally, nobody has to respond to your cheeky sarcasm unless they see a good reason to do so.
If we are obligated to follow the Jewish feast days, then we are obligated to be circumcised and to follow the law of Moses. This plainly means that we are not "abstaining from meats" for health reasons, or are following Jewish laws because we want it. It means that we are bound to the entire law, from start to finish, and subject to its penalties:
Gal_5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal 3:10)
By definition, if we refuse to follow the law, having bound ourselves to it, whether it is abstaining from bacon or eating the Passover, we are under the curse and thus it is a "sin unto death," contrary to what you claim.
The fact that the dietary laws, circumcision and other "shadows" of Christ in the Old Testament have been fulfilled and specifically passed on, is proof that we are no longer debtors to the Jewish law.
As for your assertion about Christians "learning Torah a little at a time." This idea is quite absurd, since, as already explained, you do not follow "a little of the law," but all of it, otherwise you are living in sin. The verse does not say anything about teaching or learning the Old Testament law. In fact, it calls it a burden: Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
And to be taught to be circumcised and to keep the law is called "subversion" of our souls:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
The true understanding of the verse you quoted was James' explanation for requiring Christians to abstain from blood or meats sacrificed to idols. Since all foods are clean for the Christian, then there is nothing innately wrong with eating them. Paul specifically declares we can eat whatever we desire, whether sacrificed to idols or not. The exception is only this: That it offends our brothers or encourages someone (who is weak) to sin. If it does, we ought to abstain. This was why James mentioned to Jews, because they did not want Christians to put them off by the foods they ate. Paul explains this here:
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." (1Co 10:25-31)
This is one of the big errors of Pharisaic Judaism.
This is in fact your error, as you hold that, if we are bound to the Laws of the Old Testament, we need only obey them or learn them "a little at the time."
I’ve found the best way to interpret Scripture is to allow God the Holy Spirit to perform the work.
Our walk is a spiritual walk through faith in Christ.
When we think through the proper meaning of every word in His Word, God the Holy Spirit very really sanctifies our soul through our human spirit.
Where most theological students err, is when they attempt to soulishly study Scripture by academics, instead of by education where God the Holy Spirit performs His ministry.
BTW, this doesn’t mean I don’t prefer the more rigorous word studies and understand the language better. The better we understand these things, the more likely we will hit upon the same thinking and meaning as originally communicated in Scripture. To that end, your recommendations are valued. I’ve begun a rigorous study from them,..thanks again.
By God’s Grace, thank you. Good to see you in the discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.