Romans 4:7

[JRRTFAN]

I sent this question to Ask an Aplogist on Wednesday but didn’t get a response so will ask of the general membership.

In my parish, we are studying Romans, using the excellent Catholic Scripture Study International series.

Last week we studied Romans 4. A question arose, which we could not settle, about Romans 4:7 which reads: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered;”

This is Paul’s quoting of Ps. 32:1-2, which also uses the word “covered”.

This led to a discussion as Luther used the picture of a snow covered dung hill for “covered” sins.

While we agreed that that Martin was incorrect we could not arrive at any other conclusion, the 8 English bible versions we checked, both Protestant and Catholic, use the word “covered” as does the Greek.

I thought it might be used in the sense of an American coloquialism: Leaving a restaurant - Person 1 “How much do I owe?” Person 2 “Don’t worry, I’ve got you covered.” Used in this sense would be closer to the use of redeemed as in “Jesus paid the full price on the cross.”

Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
Oh boy will I get enemies and angry people after this ansver,I should not ansver it at all,first,I have only an finnish and a swedish Bible,secondly,my english spelling is far from perfect,but I ansver the way my heart says.
Understanding the Bible is importent,and I always tell people to read the Bible for the ansvers. I also understand that for many many studying the Bible is importent,but,the famous word but,why? Why trying to search for “hidden” secrets and messages where there is nothing. St.Paul quated for sure many places in the O.T,remember that there wos no N.T that time. From my heart,soul and faith: every line,word,chapter,is true,we don’t need to seek for hidden messages in the Bible cause there are non. All we need to do is to read it,enjoying the truth and the words of Jesus,coming from the depth of the Gospels,taking every singel word as they are,every line,every chapter,as they are,because the truth,and that is what we should seek for,to help us,and moore importen,spred the Gospels to all around this world,is in The Holy Bible. Let us not trye to get moore knowledge then what God gives us. Let us never trye to seek for things don’t needed. This is my ansver.

 

[fermat]

This led to a discussion as Luther used the picture of a snow covered dung hill for “covered” sins.

While we agreed that that Martin was incorrect we could not arrive at any other conclusion, the 8 English bible versions we checked, both Protestant and Catholic, use the word “covered” as does the Greek.

I thought it might be used in the sense of an American coloquialism: Leaving a restaurant - Person 1 “How much do I owe?” Person 2 “Don’t worry, I’ve got you covered.” Used in this sense would be closer to the use of redeemed as in “Jesus paid the full price on the cross.”

Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

Actually, Luther didn’t say that. It is commonly attributed to him, but he didn’t make that comment.

The idea represented by that comment, is that we are all poor sinners and only the grace of God can ‘cover’ that up. The problem is that this view point denies the fact that God’s grace can turn the dung into something pure, as opposed to just covering it up.

To your restaurant example, when your friend has you ‘covered’, the matter is closed. It is assumed that you are not going need to pay him back later. By covering your debt, it is gone, not just hidden until later.

 

[zarthan]

I sent this question to Ask an Aplogist on Wednesday but didn’t get a response so will ask of the general membership.

In my parish, we are studying Romans, using the excellent Catholic Scripture Study International series.

Last week we studied Romans 4. A question arose, which we could not settle, about Romans 4:7 which reads: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered;”

This is Paul’s quoting of Ps. 32:1-2, which also uses the word “covered”.

This led to a discussion as Luther used the picture of a snow covered dung hill for “covered” sins.

While we agreed that that Martin was incorrect we could not arrive at any other conclusion, the 8 English bible versions we checked, both Protestant and Catholic, use the word “covered” as does the Greek.

I thought it might be used in the sense of an American coloquialism: Leaving a restaurant - Person 1 “How much do I owe?” Person 2 “Don’t worry, I’ve got you covered.” Used in this sense would be closer to the use of redeemed as in “Jesus paid the full price on the cross.”

Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

Under the Mosaic law there were sacrifices for sins. These sacrifices could not take away sins from the conscience.

Heb.10:1-4 “Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of them, it can never make perfect those who come to worship by the same sacrifices that they offer continually each year. Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have ceased to be offered, since the worshippers, once cleansed, would no longer have had any consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is only a yearly remembrance of sins, for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins.”

In these scriptures the writer is referring to the yearly Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement sacrifices. ‘Kippur’ is translated atonement, but it can also mean, ‘covering’. The scripture that you studied is not the same Hebrew word. It would seem that these Mosaic sacrifices covered the sins of the Israelites, but did not remove them. They are removed by faith in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ who takes away our sins from our consciousness and the consciousness of the Old Testament saints when our Lord Jesus Christ descended into Sheol with the good news to the people of faith from the OT.

What did the Mosaic sacrifices do besides ‘cover’ their sins?
Hebrews 9:13-14 “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’ ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God.”

In summary, from what I understand, (I do not know Catholic teaching in this mattter) having one’s sins ‘covered’ (kippur) as Noah’s ark was covered (kippur) with bitumen is not the same as having one’s sins removed by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[DaveBj]

Under the Mosaic law there were sacrifices for sins. These sacrifices could not take away sins from the conscience.

Heb.10:1-4 “Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of them, it can never make perfect those who come to worship by the same sacrifices that they offer continually each year. Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have ceased to be offered, since the worshippers, once cleansed, would no longer have had any consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is only a yearly remembrance of sins, for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins.”

In these scriptures the writer is referring to the yearly Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement sacrifices. ‘Kippur’ is translated atonement, but it can also mean, ‘covering’. The scripture that you studied is not the same Hebrew word. It would seem that these Mosaic sacrifices covered the sins of the Israelites, but did not remove them. They are removed by faith in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ who takes away our sins from our consciousness and the consciousness of the Old Testament saints when our Lord Jesus Christ descended into Sheol with the good news to the people of faith from the OT.

This pretty much agrees with the teaching I received as a Protestant (which teaching has not been negated since my becoming Catholic). Sins were covered (“kippured”) under the Old Covenant, but under the New Covenant they are remitted (completely taken away). Since Paul was quoting an OT Scripture, he would have used the OT wording.

DaveBj

What did the Mosaic sacrifices do besides ‘cover’ their sins?
Hebrews 9:13-14 “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’ ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God.”

In summary, from what I understand, (I do not know Catholic teaching in this mattter) having one’s sins ‘covered’ (kippur) as Noah’s ark was covered (kippur) with bitumen is not the same as having one’s sins removed by the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
Oh boy will I get enemies and angry people after this ansver,I should not ansver it at all,first,I have only an finnish and a swedish Bible,secondly,my english spelling is far from perfect,but I ansver the way my heart says.
Understanding the Bible is importent,and I always tell people to read the Bible for the ansvers. I also understand that for many many studying the Bible is importent,but,the famous word but,why? Why trying to search for “hidden” secrets and messages where there is nothing. St.Paul quated for sure many places in the O.T,remember that there wos no N.T that time. From my heart,soul and faith: every line,word,chapter,is true,we don’t need to seek for hidden messages in the Bible cause there are non. All we need to do is to read it,enjoying the truth and the words of Jesus,coming from the depth of the Gospels,taking every singel word as they are,every line,every chapter,as they are,because the truth,and that is what we should seek for,to help us,and moore importen,spred the Gospels to all around this world,is in The Holy Bible. Let us not trye to get moore knowledge then what God gives us. Let us never trye to seek for things don’t needed. This is my ansver.

I don’t think you will get any angry people, I think you are absolutely correct that Catholic Bible study, properly done, suggests that the plain words of the Scripture should govern the interpretation. The problem our group has is that the “plain words” “covered” seem to conflict with the Catholic theolog of infusion versus imputation. Thanks for your response!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The “plain words” could very well be figuratively referring to forgiveness, as the perennial protestant favorite Strong’s concordance seems to think. This also makes sense when you consider that this passage is quoting Psalm 32:12: “Happy the sinner who’s fault is removed, whose sin is forgiven. Happy those to whom the Lord imputes no guilt, in whose spirit is no deceit.” (NAB). Notice that “covered” seems to be a figurative term for forgiveness.

This passage in Romans bears even more weight for the Catholic position when you consider that the period of time in David’s life that Paul is referring to is after he is forgiven for his adultery with Bathsheba, after which David writes Psalm 51:

3
Have mercy on me, God, in your goodness; in your abundant compassion blot out my offense.
4
Wash away all my guilt; from my sin cleanse me.

8
Still, you insist on sincerity of heart; in my inmost being teach me wisdom.
9
Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; wash me, make me whiter than snow.

11
Turn away your face from my sins; blot out all my guilt.
12
A clean heart create for me, God; renew in me a steadfast spirit.

David clearly seems to think that his sins are completely cleansed, and not merely covered. I would imagine this context precludes protestants from very often pointing to that particular word out of the verse and basing an imputation argument on it. Hope this helps. God Bless.

 

[zarthan]

The “plain words” could very well be figuratively referring to forgiveness, as the perennial protestant favorite Strong’s concordance seems to think. This also makes sense when you consider that this passage is quoting Psalm 32:12: “Happy the sinner who’s fault is removed, whose sin is forgiven. Happy those to whom the Lord imputes no guilt, in whose spirit is no deceit.” (NAB). Notice that “covered” seems to be a figurative term for forgiveness.

This passage in Romans bears even more weight for the Catholic position when you consider that the period of time in David’s life that Paul is referring to is after he is forgiven for his adultery with Bathsheba, after which David writes Psalm 51:

3
Have mercy on me, God, in your goodness; in your abundant compassion blot out my offense.
4
Wash away all my guilt; from my sin cleanse me.

8
Still, you insist on sincerity of heart; in my inmost being teach me wisdom.
9
Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; wash me, make me whiter than snow.

11
Turn away your face from my sins; blot out all my guilt.
12
A clean heart create for me, God; renew in me a steadfast spirit.

David clearly seems to think that his sins are completely cleansed, and not merely covered. I would imagine this context precludes protestants from very often pointing to that particular word out of the verse and basing an imputation argument on it. Hope this helps. God Bless.

I don’t want to be argumentative, but I do not think David was actually cleansed of all his sins or ‘perfected’ until the sacrificial death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ.

The Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate translate Ps.32:1 as ‘covered’ as does the Hebrew translation and most other translations.
biblestudytools.com/psalms/32-1-compare.html

If one were to do a Greek word study of ‘covered’ in Romans 4:7, one would find that ‘kalupto’ is translated as covered, concealed, or hidden in the N.T. The most recognized NT scriptures are from 1 Peter 4:8 “love covers a multitude of sins” (quoting from Prov.10:12), and James 5:20: “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”.Clearly, having one’s sins covered is to be desired.

As much as Ps.51 apparently speaks about the cleansing of David’s sin, David did enter heaven after he died. David needed his sins to be actually removed or taken away. On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter explains that Ps.16 is not speaking of David’s body and soul being delivered from the grave and Sheol. Rather, the apostle Peter says that Psalm 16 is speaking of the deliverance of the soul and body of our Lord Jesus Christ from Sheol and the grave.

Jesus Christ is called ‘the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; so that He himself might have preeminence in everything.” (Col. 1:18). It seems clear that none of the O.T. saints who died preceded Jesus Christ in entering into the presence of our Heavenly Father. Hebrews 11 speaks about the faith of these O.T. patriarchs, prophets and martyrs by saying,”Yet all these, though approved because of their faith, did not receive what had been promised. God had foreseen something better for us, so that without us they should not be made perfect.” This verse seems to be saying that spirits of just men were not perfected apart from the body of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is also the one of whom the apostle Paul quoting from Ps.68:18 says, “He ascended on high and took prisoners captive; he gave gifts to men.” (Eph 4:8). Paul then says in verse 9: “What does ‘he ascended” mean except that he also descended into the lower regions of the earth? “

The apostle Peter speaks about these captives in the lower regions of the earth to whom Jesus Christ preached. “Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison…” (1 Peter 3:19).

The O.T. saints were able to have their sins forgiven, and covered, but they were not able to have their sins removed or taken away, and thus, perfected. We like them, need “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I think that your argument, while understandable, contradicts directly the clear words of David. Saying “I don’t think David really has his sins blotted away” compared to the inspired words of David saying “you blot my sins away” is a losing argument. I never stated that he was perfected, but his mortal sin was indeed blotted away.

Paul uses both he and Abraham as examples of those saved by grace. His entire argument hinges on the fact that even those in the Old Covenant were saved by grace, even if they were not aware yet of the Trinitarian application of that grace. However you want to interpret the notoriously ambiguous passage referring to the spirits in prison that had the gospel preached to them by Christ, I think it is a safe assumption to make that the OT saints had all things made clear to them prior to their entrance into heaven. They were saved by grace, but they were also judged according to what they knew. I imagine purgatory was in order.

That being said, there are a couple things one needs to keep in mind. David was regarded as justified. This is a real, and not imputed, justification. Sacrifices were offered and imperfect in the sense that they needed to be re-offered continually, yet the only “power” they had was in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice. I think what may be confusing the issue that you need to keep in mind is that in Catholic theology, the sacrifice of Christ is primarily a propitiation, not primarily a penal-substitution/expiation as in the protestant view.

And keeping this fact in mind will help clear up the slight conundrum you seem to find yourself in. In Catholic theology, the sacrifice propitiates and pleases the Father, and then he expiates our sins because he is appeased. Because of this, the OT sacrifices themselves did not “wipe away sin” in the temporal timeline, and yet because they pointed forward to the ultimate and eternal sacrifice (the eternal aspect extending both in the future and the PAST), David and Abraham’s sacrifices can truly appease God and he will grant them the grace due to Christ’s death. It being stated that the OT sacrifices could not expiate sin does NOT mean that the sins of the OT saints were not expiated, otherwise they would not have been saved by grace, and so contradict Paul’s entire argument. It simply means, upon closer reading, that it was not the animal sacrifices themselves that were doing the saving. It is similar to those that say “the Church says there is only salvation through Christ” and so then assume that it is being implied that there is no salvation for those that do not know Christ. This is false. They can be saved by grace, but whether they know it or not, their salvation is through the propitiation of Christ’s atoning death, and this will be made clear to them upon death.

The OT saints’ justification is real, and yet imperfect because they do not have all the knowledge. According to the epistle of Peter, however, it alludes to the fact that Christ made a few things known to the dead. So in Catholic theology, there is no issue with the verses of infused justification in the OT since our soteriology is subtly yet distinctly different. Protestants find themselves in the unique situation of doing essentially what you just did, and saying “David didn’t mean what he said.” God Bless.

 

[zarthan]

I think that your argument, while understandable, contradicts directly the clear words of David. Saying “I don’t think David really has his sins blotted away” compared to the inspired words of David saying “you blot my sins away” is a losing argument. I never stated that he was perfected, but his mortal sin was indeed blotted away.

Paul uses both he and Abraham as examples of those saved by grace. His entire argument hinges on the fact that even those in the Old Covenant were saved by grace, even if they were not aware yet of the Trinitarian application of that grace. However you want to interpret the notoriously ambiguous passage referring to the spirits in prison that had the gospel preached to them by Christ, I think it is a safe assumption to make that the OT saints had all things made clear to them prior to their entrance into heaven. They were saved by grace, but they were also judged according to what they knew. I imagine purgatory was in order.

That being said, there are a couple things one needs to keep in mind. David was regarded as justified. This is a real, and not imputed, justification. Sacrifices were offered and imperfect in the sense that they needed to be re-offered continually, yet the only “power” they had was in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice. I think what may be confusing the issue that you need to keep in mind is that in Catholic theology, the sacrifice of Christ is primarily a propitiation, not primarily a penal-substitution/expiation as in the protestant view.

And keeping this fact in mind will help clear up the slight conundrum you seem to find yourself in. In Catholic theology, the sacrifice propitiates and pleases the Father, and then he expiates our sins because he is appeased. Because of this, the OT sacrifices themselves did not “wipe away sin” in the temporal timeline, and yet because they pointed forward to the ultimate and eternal sacrifice (the eternal aspect extending both in the future and the PAST), David and Abraham’s sacrifices can truly appease God and he will grant them the grace due to Christ’s death. It being stated that the OT sacrifices could not expiate sin does NOT mean that the sins of the OT saints were not expiated, otherwise they would not have been saved by grace. It simply means, upon closer reading, that it was not the animal sacrifices themselves that were doing the saving. It is similar to those that say “the Church says there is only salvation through Christ” and so then assume that it is being implied that there is no salvation for those that do not know Christ. This is false. They can be saved by grace, but whether they know it or not, their salvation is through the propitiation of Christ’s atoning death, and this will be made clear to them upon death.

The OT saints’ justification is real, and yet imperfect because they do not have all the knowledge. According to the epistle of Peter, however, it alludes to the fact that Christ made a few things known to the dead. So in Catholic theology, there is no issue with the verses of infused justification in the OT since our soteriology is subtly yet distinctly different. Protestants find themselves in the unique situation of doing essentially what you just did, and saying “David didn’t mean what he said.” God Bless.

I do believe that Abraham, David and the O.T. saints were ‘saved’ or justified by faith. I never implied that because they did not ‘know Christ’ that they were not saved. I was never a Protestant so I do not know what you mean by ‘penal-substitution/expiation’
I believe that the propitiation of our Lord Jesus Christ ‘perfected’ them and made it possible for them to enter the presence of God after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You do not clarify your statement: I think it is a safe assumption to make that the OT saints had all things made clear to them prior to their entrance into heaven.Are agreeing with the Catechism:?

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:480 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.482

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."483 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

I believe the O.T. testament saints were allowed to enter heaven because their sins were removed actually at this time, and thus perfected in their faith. I have no explanation for
Ps.51 at this time. I think you are saying that their sins had already been removed, but they did not possess the full knowledge of their salvation until then.

God’s peace be with you.

 

[CEM5]

It seems simple enough: What happens when something is covered up? It is no longer seen. Out of sight - out of mind.

Here are some notes from the The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg 842

46 ** 6. David: Like his jewish contemporaries, Paul regarded David as the author of the Pss [Psalms], even though the Ps to be quoted is usually considered a late one (of personal thanksgiving). In the MT it bears the ancient title “Of David”. apart from deeds: These important words are placed in the emphatic final position of the sentence immediately preceding the words of the Ps itself. 7. blessed are they …: Ps 32:1-2 (LXX) [that’s the Septuagint]. The text continues Paul’s argument that began with Gen 15:6. Just as God credited Abraham with uprightness independently of meritorious deeds, so too a human being can be acceptable to God even without such deeds. In the first case Paul argued by prescinding from deeds; now he argues by showing that the absence of deeds of merit is not an obstacle to justification by God. The vbs. in the Ps quoted, “forgive, cover, take no account of,” are ways of expressing the removal of sin, the obstacle to human rectitude before God. They express as it were, the negative side of the Christian experience. But the Ps also emphasizes the gratuity of divine mercy; it is only the Lord (Yahweh; cf. 9:28) who can produce these effects, and human beings must trust in him and be surrounded by his kindness (Ps 32:10). The words of the Ps do not necessarily mean that the sins remain, whereas God’s benevolence merely covers them up. These are metaphors for the remission of sins. Thus both witnesses, Abraham and David, show that the OT itself supports Paul’s thesis of graced justification through faith. In this way his teachings “upholds” the law (3:31).

So, as far as I can deduce, “remission” means a “disappearance”; “no longer can be seen”, which is what happens when something is covered up: it can no longer be seen. It has disappeared from our sight.

blessings,

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

That is correct, their sins were removed, but the knowledge of their salvation was not yet known. It shouldn’t be too foreign a concept, since many Catholics ironically like to argue purgatory itself by the parable of Abraham’s bosom, and purgatory itself is a cleansing process prior to the entrance of heaven.

One must not confuse the temporal and eternal timelines. The temporal event of Jesus’ death achieved eternal atonement, and so the OT saints’ justification was real, their sins were indeed forgiven. Abraham, Noah, David, etc were truly regarded as inherently righteous due to grace. This was a personal quality, and not merely an imputation. If we went with your original view, protestant imputation is the correct understanding of “covering”, but then you would have to explain the passages in the Psalms and the multitude of other passages speaking of an infused grace. Grace is grace. It cleanses us, Old or New Covenant. The grace of God cleanses His children past present and future, but it is eternally won by a temporal event. If the OT saints had their mortal sins after death, they would not have been waiting in Abraham’s bosom but in hell. More than this, Paul’s using of OT saints to make his argument of NT justification would be a bit pointless.

Hope that helps explain my position. God Bless.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I do believe that Abraham, David and the O.T. saints were ‘saved’ or justified by faith. I never implied that because they did not ‘know Christ’ that they were not saved. I was never a Protestant so I do not know what you mean by ‘penal-substitution/expiation’
I believe that the propitiation of our Lord Jesus Christ ‘perfected’ them and made it possible for them to enter the presence of God after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You do not clarify your statement: I think it is a safe assumption to make that the OT saints had all things made clear to them prior to their entrance into heaven.Are agreeing with the Catechism:?

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:480 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.482

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."483 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

I believe the O.T. testament saints were allowed to enter heaven because their sins were removed actually at this time, and thus perfected in their faith. I have no explanation for
Ps.51 at this time. I think you are saying that their sins had already been removed, but they did not possess the full knowledge of their salvation until then.

God’s peace be with you.

That is correct, their sins were removed, but the knowledge of their salvation was not yet known. It shouldn’t be too foreign a concept, since many Catholics ironically like to argue purgatory itself by the parable of Abraham’s bosom, and purgatory itself is a cleansing process prior to the entrance of heaven. They could not enter purgatory to be perfected because they could not enter prior to Christ, but this does not mean they were not saved, as we both agree.

One must not confuse the temporal and eternal timelines. The temporal event of Jesus’ death achieved eternal atonement, and so the OT saints’ justification was real, their sins were indeed forgiven. Abraham, Noah, David, etc were truly regarded as inherently righteous due to grace. This was a personal quality, and not merely an imputation. If we went with your original view, protestant imputation is the correct understanding of “covering”, but then you would have to explain the passages in the Psalms and the multitude of other passages speaking of an infused grace. Grace is grace. It cleanses us, Old or New Covenant. The grace of God cleanses His children past present and future, but it is eternally won by a temporal event. If the OT saints had their mortal sins after death, they would not have been waiting in Abraham’s bosom but in hell. More than this, Paul’s using of OT saints to make his argument of NT justification would be a bit pointless. That is, unless the nature of infused justification is the same for both.

Hope that helps explain my position. God Bless.

 

[CEM5]

P.S. to my above post…

This kind of ties into these verses as well:

Hebrews 8:12 NRSA
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."

Hebrews 10:17 NRSA
he also adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

 

[zarthan]

It seems simple enough: What happens when something is covered up? It is no longer seen. Out of sight - out of mind.

Here are some notes from the The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg 842

46 ** 6. David: Like his jewish contemporaries, Paul regarded David as the author of the Pss [Psalms], even though the Ps to be quoted is usually considered a late one (of personal thanksgiving). In the MT it bears the ancient title “Of David”. apart from deeds: These important words are placed in the emphatic final position of the sentence immediately preceding the words of the Ps itself. 7. blessed are they …: Ps 32:1-2 (LXX) [that’s the Septuagint]. The text continues Paul’s argument that began with Gen 15:6. Just as God credited Abraham with uprightness independently of meritorious deeds, so too a human being can be acceptable to God even without such deeds. In the first case Paul argued by prescinding from deeds; now he argues by showing that the absence of deeds of merit is not an obstacle to justification by God. The vbs. in the Ps quoted, “forgive, cover, take no account of,” are ways of expressing the removal of sin, the obstacle to human rectitude before God. They express as it were, the negative side of the Christian experience. But the Ps also emphasizes the gratuity of divine mercy; it is only the Lord (Yahweh; cf. 9:28) who can produce these effects, and human beings must trust in him and be surrounded by his kindness (Ps 32:10). The words of the Ps do not necessarily mean that the sins remain, whereas God’s benevolence merely covers them up. These are metaphors for the remission of sins. Thus both witnesses, Abraham and David, show that the OT itself supports Paul’s thesis of graced justification through faith. In this way his teachings “upholds” the law (3:31).

So, as far as I can deduce, “remission” means a “disappearance”; “no longer can be seen”, which is what happens when something is covered up: it can no longer be seen. It has disappeared from our sight.

blessings,

If we assume that the sins of the O.T. saints were removed, covered up, remitted and so on, then why was it necessary for Jesus Christ to preach to them in prison? Did they need to have the ‘knowlege’ of perfection, or did they need to experience the means of their perfection in order to be released from Sheol?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

How could they enter heaven prior to their means of entering heaven? It seems only right that Christ be the firstfruits. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord, and so it would seem quite proper that the knowledge of their means of Salvation is quite important. The real question is, how can they be in Abraham’s bosom instead of gehenna unless they are actually cleansed of mortal sin? And why is Paul using OT saints as examples for his argument of NT justification? Why does David clearly say his sins are wiped away? It would seem your viewpoint has too many problems to be tenable.

 

[zarthan]

That is correct, their sins were removed, but the knowledge of their salvation was not yet known. It shouldn’t be too foreign a concept, since many Catholics ironically like to argue purgatory itself by the parable of Abraham’s bosom, and purgatory itself is a cleansing process prior to the entrance of heaven. They could not enter purgatory to be perfected because they could not enter prior to Christ, but this does not mean they were not saved, as we both agree.

One must not confuse the temporal and eternal timelines. The temporal event of Jesus’ death achieved eternal atonement, and so the OT saints’ justification was real, their sins were indeed forgiven. Abraham, Noah, David, etc were truly regarded as inherently righteous due to grace. This was a personal quality, and not merely an imputation. If we went with your original view, protestant imputation is the correct understanding of “covering”, but then you would have to explain the passages in the Psalms and the multitude of other passages speaking of an infused grace. Grace is grace. It cleanses us, Old or New Covenant. The grace of God cleanses His children past present and future, but it is eternally won by a temporal event. If the OT saints had their mortal sins after death, they would not have been waiting in Abraham’s bosom but in hell. More than this, Paul’s using of OT saints to make his argument of NT justification would be a bit pointless. That is, unless the nature of infused justification is the same for both.

Hope that helps explain my position. God Bless.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position, you are patient. I will ponder these things as it relates to the ‘perfecting’ of the O.T saints.

God bless.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

God Bless

 

[CEM5]

If we assume that the sins of the O.T. saints were removed, covered up, remitted and so on, then why was it necessary for Jesus Christ to preach to them in prison? Did they need to have the ‘knowlege’ of perfection, or did they need to experience the means of their perfection in order to be released from Sheol?

Hi Zarthan,

Before Jesus rose from the dead and entered heaven, no one was permitted to enter heaven because of the stain of original sin. Jesus is our redeemer and the bridge between man and God now, where we now have the Sacrament of baptism that cleanses us and our faith that saves us in Jesus Christ.

Before Jesus the dead “slept” in Sheol, a netherworld of the dead that was divided into two “places” - paradise and hades. Paradise, recall, is where Jesus said to the thief on the cross that He and the thief would be - not heaven. Paradise is where the OT saints who were going to go to heaven “slept” (or resided) and awaited Christ. Hades was the place where the unsaved were going to hell.

This “paradise” in Sheol was also described as “Abraham’s bosom” and this is the place that was described in Jesus’ parable of the rich man and the poor man (Lazarus), - not heaven and not hell, and not purgatory, really, but Sheol.

This is the place that Jesus went to release those spirits in prison - the place of the dead, and preached the good news to them so they may be saved.

Once Jesus rose from dead and then later ascended into heaven, all those souls who were ‘saved’ were allowed into heaven. As Scripture tells us, Jesus is the firstfruits of heaven, and no one could enter until He did for He ‘ransomed’ (redeemed) us and paid the price for our remittance of sins.

blessings,

 

[PJM]

=JRRTFAN;7169129]I sent this question to Ask an Aplogist on Wednesday but didn’t get a response so will ask of the general membership.

In my parish, we are studying Romans, using the excellent Catholic Scripture Study International series.

Last week we studied Romans 4. A question arose, which we could not settle, about Romans 4:7 which reads: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered;”

This is Paul’s quoting of Ps. 32:1-2, which also uses the word “covered”.

This led to a discussion as Luther used the picture of a snow covered dung hill for “covered” sins.

While we agreed that that Martin was incorrect we could not arrive at any other conclusion, the 8 English bible versions we checked, both Protestant and Catholic, use the word “covered” as does the Greek.

I thought it might be used in the sense of an American coloquialism: Leaving a restaurant - Person 1 “How much do I owe?” Person 2 “Don’t worry, I’ve got you covered.” Used in this sense would be closer to the use of redeemed as in “Jesus paid the full price on the cross.”

Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

From STRONGS Concordance of Greek and Hebrew meanings

Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon Search Results​

**Result of search for “covered”:
2643 chaph khaf from 2653 (in the moral sense of covered from soil); pure:–innocent. **