Paul's Use Of Psalm 32 In Romans 4

          The Epistle to the Romans is Paul's literary masterpiece on the doctrine of salvation. It is the most elegant of his extant writings. The apostle begins his treatise by presenting the issue of man's depravity, the righteousness of God, and his resultant condemnation. Paul shows that both Jew and Gentile have violated God's righteous commandments, making them wholly worthy of divine condemnation. He strips away every layer of man's hubris. Everyone stands guilty before Him, without any ability to challenge that divine verdict, but with the positive side being that God has presented a means of reconciliation for us through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

          Paul makes an argument by example when he mentions Abraham, who lived prior to the Law being given to the people of God. He does this with the intent of showing that his teaching is compatible with the Old Testament. A system of works righteousness would result in boasting, which God takes offense at. Further, Romans 4:4 says that if someone earns wages, then it is not a gift. But justification is precisely that, so any claim to self-merit must be left out of that equation. Romans 4:5 says that God declares righteous the ungodly and counts them as such on the basis faith. Thus, the one and only thing a man can do in this scenario is set aside any dependence upon himself. 

          The Law required that two or three witnesses be present to establish the validity of a charge (Deuteronomy 19:15; Numbers 35:30). We see the Apostle Paul adhering to this custom in arguing for justification before God by faith as opposed to meritorious works. He brings up Abraham and King David as examples of men who were justified without consideration of good works. The latter person is of special interest as we consider how Paul ties in Psalm 32 with his argument. The Psalm in question is one of a penitential nature. What is especially striking is that, the Law did not have any provision of atonement for the man who committed murder. Yet, God forgave David anyway. This divine act helps to lay the foundation for Paul's declaration of God declaring righteous the ungodly and retaining His status as righteous in so doing.

          The Psalm used by the Apostle Paul concerns the blessedness of being freed from the guilt of sin that comes about as a result of God forgiving it. The misdeeds King David had repented of were sending Uriah the Hittite into battle to be killed with the intent of covering up his affair with Bathsheba. One scandalous act led him to committing another, but his scheming failed utterly in the end. Further, David uses three words to describe his conduct, showcasing the richness of Hebrew vocabulary, which are guilt, wrongdoing, and sin. His act was a distortion of decency. It was crooked, not upright. It was a violation of the Law. Three words are used in Psalm 32 to describe three different aspects of breaching the divine moral standard.

          Contrariwise, David used three terms to describe God's mercy: forgiven, covered, and not being taken into account. To be "forgiven" of our sins means that God has taken them away from us. To have our sins "covered" means that their penalty has been met. That leads up to the forgiveness of our sins by God. In fact, Romans 4:7 is the only instance in which this word occurs in the New Testament. When sin is not taken into account, that means we do not merit for ourselves God's eschatological wrath. He does not treat us with the eternal fate that we deserve, just as David himself was spared physical death for his actions. Forgiveness is entirely a matter of grace, not an obligation owed to us. We are actually the ones indebted to God, and could never even begin to repay Him for our sin.

          It is worth noting that King David did not mention any good deeds done to earn God's favor. In fact, he only brought up his sin, with its gravity being enormous. He came to God with nothing, but was still forgiven for what he had done. God is said to give a righteous status to men who are ungodly, since David was very much deserving judgment and had not one thing to offer in his defense. The non-imputation of sin to a believer's account necessarily implies an upright standing before Him. Hence, David was regarded as righteous in God's sight. Walter Roehrs, in the the Concordia Self-Study Commentary, Old Testament, p. 355, writes:

          "And indeed David claims no merit or worthiness, entitling him to absolution; even his penitential tears and abject remorse do not produce anything deserving consideration. Giving all glory to God, he revels in sharing the happiness which is bestowed out of pure grace on the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity (1-2)."

          The Apostle Paul uses King David as an example of a man being declared righteous in spite of his sins against God. Both he and Abraham can speak to the reality of justification apart from works. Their experiences are spoken of as equivalent to each other. Romans 4:7 and Romans 4:8 emphasize our pardon from sin. The point being made in these parallel stanzas is that we are not justified by good works. David speaks of the "blessed man" who receives full pardon from sin, which implies that he believed others could experience the same. Paul here recontextualized the meaning of forgiveness as deliverance from earthly death to being set free from its punishment in the life to come. This excerpt from the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, p. 624, is relevant here:

"...In contrast with many of the rabbinic references to Ps. 32, Paul makes no mention of the confession of sins, which is a central theme of the psalms (cf. Ps. 32:5; see Str-B 3:202-3). Confession is implicitly taken up in faith for Paul, in which sin that has overpowered our person is overcome: in faith "we give glory to God" (4:20; cf. 1:23; 3:26). As was the case with the story of Abraham, the broader context of the psalm makes clear that the "reckoning of righteousness" is no mere declaration, but rather an effective word."

          Confession is faith in Jesus Christ expressed. Repentance is the recognition of the need of redemption from sin and its penalty, involving a change of mind and heart. These things are closely associated with salvation and cannot be separated from it. The New Testament never takes into consideration the idea of a Christian either failing to do one or both. Confession and repentance are assumed of believers without exception. They are lived expressions of faith that acknowledge the gravity of sin and entrust themselves completely to the grace of God.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Lawlessness and I John 3

You may have heard, "Sin is the transgression of the law." A favorite Sabbatarian proof-text. You may have also heard "lawlessness" means being without the Old Covenant law". If so, the Pharisees should have been the least lawless people in Israel. Yet Jesus accused them of lawlessness. There is more to lawlessness than the law.

---

In my last post, "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", I wrote about how "keep My commandments" did not refer to the Ten Commandments. We learned what "commandments" means. Today, I want to discuss another proof text for law-keeping: I John 3: 4. Let's see what "lawlessness" means.

The Bible was not written in KJV English

When I was a Sabbatarian, I took the word "lawlessness" to mean "being without the law". The Old Covenant law, that is. I mean, just look at the word: law-less. Even the Greek word anomos (ἄνομος) literally translates to "without law". Can it get plainer than that? Mainstream Christians claim they are under grace rather than law, but isn't that the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? 

I understand how easy it is to come to this conclusion, but the conclusion is not built on a careful examination of the concept of lawlessness. It's built on what I just said, the word itself. Granted it is an obvious conclusion, but is it the right conclusion? For example, are you reckless only when you don't have any reck?

If anyone was ever in favor of the Old Covenant law, it was the Pharisees. If we are going to take this word on face value, then Jesus accused the most law-oriented people in Israel of being the ones who possessed the least law. 
They had the full law yet did not have the law? How does that work?

This is not lost on Sabbatarians. We simply concluded they had too much law. The Pharisees added to it, and that was just as bad as taking away from it (DEU. 4: 2).
But doesn't having too much law break the definition of "being without the law"? Too much law is the opposite of no law.

As a Sabbatarian, I would have responded that the Pharisees were nullifying the law with their traditions (MAT. 15: 6). They were using traditions and interpretations to remove God's intent for the law. They were spiritually lawless.

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Do you see how the argument is subtly moving away from "without Torah" towards something much deeper?

My point in this back and forth is to demonstrate that even those who define lawlessness as 'not having the Old Covenant law' know it is not so simple.

How does this all tie together? What is lawlessness? How can those who are the most focused on the law be lawless? Is sin defined as breaking the Old Covenant law? What does any of this have to do with Christians in the New Covenant? And are grace-based Christians guilty of the same offense as the Pharisees?

Today's article is going to rely on you having read the Road to Sabbatarianism series. If you read that series, you will be much better prepared to understand some concepts in this article.

Let's start with the prime proof-text of this view.

KJV ONLY

In Sabbatarian theology, few verses are more foundational than this one: 

(I JON. 3: 4) [KJV] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Not just this verse, but the King James Version rendering of this verse, specifically. The conclusion we are supposed to reach is, "If the definition of sin is to violate the law, then don't violate the law!" It overrides practically any discussion on how Covenants work.

But here's the thing - that's not what the verse actually says.

hē [the] hamartia [sin] estin [is] hē [the] anomia [lawlessness]

Sin is lawlessness.

Don't understand the difference? Let's walk through this together.

The KJV translators rendered the single Greek word anomia (ἀνομία) as “transgression of the law.” But “transgression of the law” is not in the Greek text. Perhaps you could translate anomia simply as “transgression” or “lawlessness,” but not both.
“Transgression of the law” worked reasonably well 500 years ago, when English usage was broader and less technical than it is today. But in modern English, the phrase sounds far more specific and legalistic than the Greek word anomia supports. 

The translators of the NKJV tried to preserve the language and feel of the KJV wherever possible. Their decision to render anomia as ‘lawlessness’ here instead of ‘transgression of the law’ is telling.

With that correction in wording should come a correction in understanding. I propose John is not defining sin as literally "lacking the Old Covenant law". Rather, he is using anomia to reveal what sin is at heart (pun intended). John is adding gravity to sin.

In order to understand why John thinks lawlessness is such a terrible thing to be accused of, we need to understand what lawlessness meant to him in the first place. Let's see some examples of how the underlying Greek words were used in the Apostles' time and place.

SEPTUAGINT AND BEYOND

I don’t want to get buried in a lesson on the Greek language. Just know there are several words in play here, such as anomos (lawless; adjective), anomia (lawlessness; noun), and anomōs (lawlessly; adverb) along with their various forms. These are a family of words built around the same basic idea.

This word family appears several times in the the Septuagint; the Greek Old Testament. We know the Apostles read the Septuagint because they often quote it. Let's see a few examples.

(PSA. 32: 1) Blessed are they whose transgressions [anomiai] are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

(PSA. 51: 2) Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity [anomias], and cleanse me from my sin.

(ISA. 53: 5) But he was wounded on account of our transgressions, and was bruised because of our iniquities [anomiai]: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruises we were healed.

Clearly, these do not indicate Old Covenant law was missing. Was King David without Torah? Was Messiah bruised because no one had Torah? How can "being without Torah" be plural? "Being without Torahs"?

If you scan every instance of this word family in the Septuagint, then check how translators render those into English, you get a list with words like: iniquity, transgression, wickedness, unrighteousness, lawlessness. The idea isn't an absence or imbalance in Old Covenant law, but moral corruption and rebellion against God.

But the Septuagint wasn't the only Greek resource we can check. When we investigate how these words were used in the Qumran community (think Dead Sea Scrolls), or by Josephus, or in the wider Greek world, we find such things as: violation of social order, covenant betrayal, impurity, wickedness, disorder, spiritual corruption, opposition to God's will, rebellion.

To put that into an easy-to-digest visual:

Septuagint (moral) → transgression, iniquity, wickedness, rebellion

Qumran (covenantal) → covenant betrayal, impurity, corruption, rebellion

Josephus (historical/political) → wickedness, disorder, rebellion

Wider Greek usage (social/civic) → disorder, social chaos, impiety, rebellion

This shows us what a broad range of meanings these words had. The idea is nowhere near as simple as "without law" let alone "without Old Covenant law".

Now, notice something strange in Matthew:

(MAT. 7: 23) And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness (anomia)!’

A popular verse. You've probably read it a thousand times. But, practice lawlessness? How odd. Jesus says much the same in MAT. 13:41. Which definition of lawlessness makes more sense here?
A) Practice "without the law"
or
B) practice [the words listed above]

I'm going with B!

Consider how odd it is to accuse someone of actively doing "without the law". As if "without the law" is something you can do. Using a noun like an action is not unusual. People "commit murder" or "show mercy". But how does one commit "no law"? It's like saying, "I'm going to insufficient funds tonight." It makes no sense.

But practicing wickedness or corruption or iniquity makes complete sense.

Given this, it is not advisable to jump to the conclusion that "lawlessness" means "being without the Old Covenant law." Taking the word at face value actually misses the point.

Let's compare these two very different definitions of lawless to see which works better for the Pharisees.

ALLIES IN OPEN REBELLION

Jesus did not accuse everyone of lawlessness. Jesus criticized the Sadducees sure enough, but He never directly accused them of lawlessness. Strangely, He never directly accused the Romans of lawlessness. They seem to be the most deserving.

What was Jesus accusing the Pharisees of, then? Consider the definitions in the previous section. They were rebellious.

Hypocritical. Vain. Argumentative. Accusers. Political. Scheming. Entrapping. Fastidious about the law, but completely missing the point. Claiming they were God's people, but could not recognize Him. Using the law as a weapon to set themselves up and to beat others down.

Lawlessness is things like this. ↑↑↑↑

When Jesus accused the Pharisees of lawlessness, He did not single out the law as the problem, and He didn't offer them the law as the solution. See for yourself:

(MAT. 23: 28) Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

How can one be filled with "without law"? It's even more absurd than saying they were doing "without law".
But did you miss the part of how they appeared righteous? On the outside they were keeping the law. Paul felt Pharisees kept the law. He described it in Philippians 3, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee" [v5] ... "concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" [v6]. But many times he goes on to describe his own failures. So, they were not "without the law".
Others thought the Pharisees were righteous, because they were keeping the law. The lawlessness was inside ...of their hearts. God knew.

(MAT. 15: 8) These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

I think we've fairly well established the meaning of lawlessness. Now, let's circle back again to I John 3.

LAWLESS AT HEART

(I JON. 3: 4) [NKJV] Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Notice John says “also”: “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness.” They are separate in concept, but inseparable in practice. All sin falls under the umbrella of lawlessness. Lawlessness is all those terrible things we saw above, and sin is a manifestation of it. What I am driving at here is: sin is a symptom of something wrong inside. Something that law-keeping in and of itself cannot fix.
Did John write this to a Christian in order to emphasize the law? No. He did it to emphasize the gravity of sin!

So, we have to ask, is being 'under grace not law' the very definition of 'lawlessness' which Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against? No.

But it can be! ...if we don't take sin seriously.

We are in danger of developing the attitude that since we are under grace we can behave any way we wish and we'll just be forgiven. There are moral requirements in Christianity. In the age of grace, sin is still sinful. In the age of the New Covenant, covenant betrayal is still possible. As a good friend of mine said, "Sin is acting like you don't have any obligation to anybody but your own needs and wants." Jesus didn't only come to save you, He came so He could send the Holy Spirit to transform you. John's point is much the same message as Paul's from Romans 6. Discipleship means to become like the Teacher. If you're not becoming like the Teacher, then what are you doing?

So, what of the law? I know someone out there is still thinking the law is the medicine for sin. It's not. The Holy Spirit is.

In "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III", we saw how both sin and righteousness can exist apart from the law. Sin is any violation of God's nature. The law was neither the ultimate source of nor the solution for sin. All of those first-century Jews who rejected their Messiah had the Mosaic law. How'd that go?
The Pharisees had the law, and everyone thought they were righteous (except the One who knows the heart). This tells us the law can either reveal the issue or it can be used to mask the issue. Because law-keeping relies on the heart, one thing it cannot do is remove the issue. If it could, then Jesus died in vain (GAL. 2: 21).
In the New Covenant, sin is not about the Old Covenant law. New covenant, new terms. And the righteousness God wants does not come from law-keeping, but from His own righteousness being credited to us by faith. 
None of this is about the old law. John never wrote "sin is the transgression of the law". The word "lawlessness" is not about the Torah. It certainly isn't about trying to find the proper balance of Torah. All of this is about the heart. It's about God and our relationship with Him.

John 3:4 may not point to the Old Covenant law, but John also does not leave us with the idea that grace means having no rules whatsoever.

(I JON. 3: 23) And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

As we saw in "The Sabbath Rest of John 14", John's antidote to sin and lawlessness is a life defined by faith and love. If you are following the Holy Spirit, would you be lawless?

CONCLUSION

Does the Bible define sin as "the transgression of the law"? No. John never wrote that.
Remember, the meme at the start of this article says, 'It's not what you think sin is, it's what does scripture say sin is.' Well, scripture doesn't say that.
John wrote, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness”

Lawlessness is not best understood as 'being without the Old Covenant law', or 'being with too much Old Covenant law', or even 'not Sabbathing properly'. That is not what it meant in the original Greek. If it were, then Sabbatarians - who only keep about 2-3% of the law - are far more lawless than the Pharisees.
The obvious reading is misleading.

As the back and forth at the start of this post shows, even those who redefine lawlessness as "lacking Torah" eventually run into this same conclusion that I am making now - there is much more to lawlessness than meets the eye.
It isn't that one is literally without laws, but that one is figuratively without them. Spiritually without controls and boundaries. That's why you can have the law yet still be lawless (and not just the Pharisees, because we see "lawlessness" throughout the Old Testament). Lawlessness is a problem of the heart. It is about betraying the Covenant that you are in. It is a rebellion against the God we claim to follow. In effect, it is a rejection of Him.

It is lovelessness, faithlessness, hypocrisy, injustice, symbol over substance, and corruption hiding beneath outward religiosity.

It is going through the motions. It is being spiritually off course without correcting it. It's comparing ourselves to others and pointing the finger at them. It is accusing our neighbor rather than helping them. It is mouthing Jesus is your Lord, yet behaving like anything but. It is a mask of righteousness. It is claiming you keep the law when you you've missed the point. If even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, then we humans can use law and grace to lie about our spiritual condition, too.

That is why lawlessness is such a serious accusation. John was not putting us all under the law. Rather, John was packing all the terrible meanings above into one word (lawlessness) and applying it to sin to expose what sin really is. And sin is but a symptom, a symptom of this internal problem.

The law cannot fix this. Never could. Law can only expose it ...or hide it.

I have always admired the way Armstrongism recognized there is more to the Christian walk than merely "being forgiven". There is a genuine emphasis on personal responsibility and the danger of becoming spiritually complacent. I may fundamentally disagree that this responsibility means keeping [3% of] the Old Covenant law, but I agree Christians should prayerfully consider their loyalty to the New Covenant in how they live. I believe that is what John was trying to express in his epistle.

Sin is lawlessness, and lawlessness is serious.

Here are some posts to help you move forward:

Sin Is The Transgression of The Law?
Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart
Two Trees - Two Covenants
Gardening With God, or Growing Spiritual Fruit
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
Law of Moses, Law of God

This post is somewhat of a loose series with the following articles:

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Sabbath Rest of Isaiah 66
The Sabbath Rest of John 14

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************