Romans 3:25

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Ah... you're familiar with the didache.

I am curious as to how you will vote.

Are you a 'faith alone' kind of Christian or are the sacraments involved as salvitic actions?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Just for clarity.

The holy mysteries or sacraments in the Orthodox Church are vessels of the mystical participation in divine grace of mankind.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Absolutely! Are you saying that this is evidence against faith alone? Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar are means through which God continually pours out his gift of saving faith upon us.

I would rather say that it should not be used to contend for 'faith alone'. Shooting it down... one verse at a time.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I am a Jesus alone kind of Christian. Our righteousness is not our own it is Jesus'. This bond between a believer and the saviour results in fulfilling the sacraments and the old testament law namely the law of moses. Because His love creates love in us and love is the fulfilment of the law. Does that make sense?

I understand it. I just disagree with it.

The Churches teachings have always been that the fulfillment of the sacraments are through the body of believers not away from the body of believers.

For instance the 'cup of blessing' which we are all to partake of... has a solid foundation in the reality of taking communion with the other believers. Those who are partaking communion were baptised into that group by that group.

My point is... there is no 'alone'.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Ahh but you see it's like this. Are we not the body of Christ? Therefore when I mean't Jesus alone I also included the body of believers under and in Christ. I probably should of said that haha
so Forgive me =P

Some of us are, some are not.

Not the subject anyway...

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Great choice of verse, and lovely discussion. Sadly I think mainstream christianity lost touch with tradition and the values that eastern orthodox and even catholicism brings.

Whoa Nelly! Not all of our discussions are lovely.

Forgive me...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just for clarity.

The holy mysteries or sacraments in the Orthodox Church are vessels of the mystical participation in divine grace of mankind

Forgive me...

Mystical mysteries.....kewl

Matthew 13:11 The yet answering, He said to them "that to ye it hath been given knowledge of the Mysteries of the Kingdom of the heavens.
To those yet, not it hath been given",
[Mark 4:11/Luke 8:10/Colos 1:26/Revelation 10:7]

Colo 1:26 The Mystery having been Hid from the ages and from the generations, now yet was made manifest to the holy-ones of Him.
27 To-whom wills, the God, to make known any the riches of the glory of this, the Mystery, in the Nations,
which is Christ in ye, the hope of glory.
[Revelation 10:7]

Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh Messenger, whenever He may be being about to be trumpeting, also is finish the Mystery of the God
as He brings Well-Message to His bond-servants the prophets.

YouTube - ‪hypnotized Fleetwood Mac‬‏

 

[heymikey80]

I see faith alone in context: Romans 3:27-28 -- "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Do we not see the sacraments?

faith in his blood - The Holy Eucharist

for the remission of sins - Baptism

Forgive me...

The association with baptism is tenuous, there's not anything but a common phrase to associate with baptism.

The connection with blood is made by Jesus, but in this context Paul hasn't mentioned anything else about his institution of the Supper. I would pointedly focus this on another association -- the association of the blood sacrifice.

 

[Fencerguy]

I see faith alone in context: Romans 3:27-28 -- "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

.

To read this verse simply as what it says (without putting any meaning onto the verse from previous understanding)

It seems that Paul is countering the argument that one still needs to follow the Old Covenant law....I don't see anywhere in this passage that "works of the law" are supposed to mean "all works"

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I see faith alone in context: Romans 3:27-28 -- "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

The association with baptism is tenuous, there's not anything but a common phrase to associate with baptism.

The connection with blood is made by Jesus, but in this context Paul hasn't mentioned anything else about his institution of the Supper. I would pointedly focus this on another association -- the association of the blood sacrifice.

Yep... I can see that too. If we choose to read it that way.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What was it that Paul 'did' that assured the other Apostles that he had been taught by The Lord?

The sacraments (mysteries).

1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Where did St. Paul say he learned this? He was not there.

Forgive me...

 

[Starlight11]

The association with baptism is tenuous, there's not anything but a common phrase to associate with baptism.

I have to agree.

Although I was really impressed by the clever word-play to see an association with Baptism and the Eucharist made! That was something I had never thought of before. I am always excited to see a completely new interpretation of a passage, and it reminds me how much our own beliefs and background shape our own interpretations. Here where some Protestants see their own beliefs of "faith alone", some Catholics see their own beliefs about the sacraments!

The connection with blood is made by Jesus, but in this context Paul hasn't mentioned anything else about his institution of the Supper. I would pointedly focus this on another association -- the association of the blood sacrifice.

I agree there's no obvious connection to the Supper here. But interpreting it as blood sacrifice is also problematic. There's no other reference to sacrifice here (unless one interprets Hilasterion as sacrifice which seems rather dubious). Rather the extremely strong parallels between this verse and the Jewish Martyrdom account of 4 Maccabees 17:21-22 point to a martyrdom reading of this verse (as does Paul's general love of Greek martyrdom terminology and his other references to martyrdom within Romans, eg Rom 5:6-8). ie the word "blood" seems to be a reference to Jesus' martyrdom.

It seems that Paul is countering the argument that one still needs to follow the Old Covenant law....I don't see anywhere in this passage that "works of the law" are supposed to mean "all works"

Agreed. For Paul, "works of the law" and "good works" seem to be very very different things. The works of the law are various rituals and ceremonial requirements, which Paul feels it is not necessary for the Gentile Christians to adopt, and which Paul is very negative about at times. Whereas good works are something Paul is always very positive about, and at times says are required for and cause salvation (eg Rom 2:6-8, Gal 6:7-9 etc).

I think one of the mistakes that got made in Protestant exegesis was to contrast 'faith' to 'good works'. In Greek the word being translated 'faith' is pistis which means faithfulness, obedience, commitment, and perseverance. To faithfully follow Jesus is precisely to obey his commands and do good works. Thus good works would appear to be included within the meaning of the Greek word for faith. To try to separate faith from good works is like trying to separate obedience from obedience and seems a bizarre approach to interpreting Paul's writings. (But then, a number of Protestant interpretive moves don't make much sense when you look at the Greek, which is probably why the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches never developed Protestant doctrine!)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I have to agree.

Although I was really impressed by the clever word-play to see an association with Baptism and the Eucharist made! That was something I had never thought of before. I am always excited to see a completely new interpretation of a passage, and it reminds me how much our own beliefs and background shape our own interpretations. Here where some Protestants see their own beliefs of "faith alone", some Catholics see their own beliefs about the sacraments!

I agree there's no obvious connection to the Supper here. But interpreting it as blood sacrifice is also problematic. There's no other reference to sacrifice here (unless one interprets Hilasterion as sacrifice which seems rather dubious). Rather the extremely strong parallels between this verse and the Jewish Martyrdom account of 4 Maccabees 17:21-22 point to a martyrdom reading of this verse (as does Paul's general love of Greek martyrdom terminology and his other references to martyrdom within Romans, eg Rom 5:6-8). ie the word "blood" seems to be a reference to Jesus' martyrdom.

Agreed. For Paul, "works of the law" and "good works" seem to be very very different things. The works of the law are various rituals and ceremonial requirements, which Paul feels it is not necessary for the Gentile Christians to adopt, and which Paul is very negative about at times. Whereas good works are something Paul is always very positive about, and at times says are required for and cause salvation (eg Rom 2:6-8, Gal 6:7-9 etc).

I think one of the mistakes that got made in Protestant exegesis was to contrast 'faith' to 'good works'. In Greek the word being translated 'faith' is pistis which means faithfulness, obedience, commitment, and perseverance. To faithfully follow Jesus is precisely to obey his commands and do good works. Thus good works would appear to be included within the meaning of the Greek word for faith. To try to separate faith from good works is like trying to separate obedience from obedience and seems a bizarre approach to interpreting Paul's writings. (But then, a number of Protestant interpretive moves don't make much sense when you look at the Greek, which is probably why the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches never developed Protestant doctrine!)

Hi!

And welcome...

Was startlight '1 through 10' already taken? j/k LOL!

Forgive me...

 

[Hupomone10]

I believe if Paul were referring to the Lord's Table, the eucharist, in Romans 3:25, he would have mentioned both the blood and body of the Lord Jesus. The fact that only the blood is mentioned is strong evidence to me that he meant nothing more than faith in Christ through His shed blood. Faith is never in anything other than Christ, not in the ordinances. I don't have faith in baptism, faith in foot washing, faith in bread and wine, faith in ceremonies. Faith in Christ alone.

Also the fact that the various translations aren't really sure whether it is a propitiation by His blood through faith, or propitiation by faith in His blood leads me to think it is a stretch to try to fit the sacrament into this verse.

We can see what we are looking for sometimes in scripture, but I don't think that was the writer's or the Holy Spirit's intention. He only included half the sacrament.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Starlight11]

Faith is never in anything other than Christ

Faith is often in God the Father. There's a massive ongoing debate among scholars of Paul as to whether the faithfulness Paul speaks of here is directed toward Christ or whether it is referring to Christ's faithfulness toward the Father. ie "[our] faith in Christ" or "faith of Christ [in God]"?

Also the fact that the various translations aren't really sure whether it is a propitiation by His blood through faith, or propitiation by faith in His blood leads me to think it is a stretch to try to fit the sacrament into this verse.

This is one of the hardest passages in the Bible for translators. Whether "propitiation" is a good translation or not has been debated for years. (I take the view that it's not, simply because it's not a well-known term in modern English, and thus by definition you have failed at giving an English translation if you're haven't translated it into words an English reader understands) It's not particularly clear how the phrases and sub-phrases in the passage should be organised. It's not at all clear what prepositions are appropriate, and in many cases these can substantially change the meaning (faith in Christ vs faith of Christ, faith in his blood vs through faith etc).

 

[Hupomone10]

Faith is often in God the Father. There's a massive ongoing debate among scholars of Paul as to whether the faithfulness Paul speaks of here is directed toward Christ or whether it is referring to Christ's faithfulness toward the Father. ie "[our] faith in Christ" or "faith of Christ [in God]"?

I can see that; I actually wondered about both perspectives myself while reading it and looking up references. But what never occurred to me was the possibility that Paul had in his mind the Lord's Table when he thought or wrote it.

This is one of the hardest passages in the Bible for translators. Whether "propitiation" is a good translation or not has been debated for years. (I take the view that it's not, simply because it's not a well-known term in modern English, and thus by definition you have failed at giving an English translation if you're haven't translated it into words an English reader understands) It's not particularly clear how the phrases and sub-phrases in the passage should be organised. It's not at all clear what prepositions are appropriate, and in many cases these can substantially change the meaning (faith in Christ vs faith of Christ, faith in his blood vs through faith etc).

Yes, this is also what I found when looking up commentaries and references on this verse. Most deal with the term "propitiation" vs. "expiation" instead of the issue I mentioned: whether it should be "propitiation in His blood through faith" or "a propitiation through faith in his blood", which is the point that apparently drove this OP.

I personally have no problem with propitiation or understanding the word.

As to the prepositions and sub-phrases, I agree the order can substantially change the meaning sometimes, but I think we have to be reading through filtered "eyes" to get a meaning so substantially different that we see this verse as the eucharist; and also baptism. Baptism for the mere reason that "remission of sins" was mentioned.

Such a hermeneutic would encourage one to literally see the eucharist any time the blood of Christ was mentioned:

Eph 2:2 "But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off (Gentiles) have been brought near by the blood of Christ"

would become

"But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the practice of the eucharist"

Heb 9:14
"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

would become

"how much more will the practice of the eucharist... cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

Col. 1:20 "and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven"

would become

"and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the sacrament of the Lord's Table; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven"

And let's not forget the "body" part of the eucharist. We can see that in many passages using this hermeneutic also:

Col. 1:21-22
"And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach"

would become

"yet He has now reconciled you in the bread of the eucharist (if you take it), in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach"

I'm trying to show the problem with such applications; but I don't know, maybe many in the church today have never been taught inductive Bible study and are actually fine with filtered interpretations. That is my actual concern...

Blessings,
H.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hupomone10,

I like some of your rewording.

You're leaving out other works of St. Paul... I would point out 1 Cor 10.

What was it that St. Paul did that was taught to him by The Lord that convinced the other Apostles that he indeed had seen Christ?

St. Paul spoke often of the mysteries (sacraments). They were not strange to him. How did he know what they were????

Forgive me...

 

[Hupomone10]

Hupomone10,

I like some of your rewording.

You're leaving out other works of St. Paul... I would point out 1 Cor 10.

What was it that St. Paul did that was taught to him by The Lord that convinced the other Apostles that he indeed had seen Christ?

St. Paul spoke often of the mysteries (sacraments). They were not strange to him. How did he know what they were????

Forgive me...

Now there's what I would call a good example. I can definitely see the Lord's Supper and baptism in 1 Corinthians 10.

God bless,
H.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Now there's what I would call a good example. I can definitely see the Lord's Supper and baptism in 1 Corinthians 10.

God bless,
H.

Would you agree that he taught all of them (Churches) the same things?

Forgive me...

 

[Tzaousios]

Would you agree that he taught all of them (Churches) the same things?

It would be very interesting to know what you are trying to accomplish.