N.T. Wright, Bible Review, August 2001.
.
Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.
The American obsession with the second coming of Jesus — especially with distorted interpretations of it — continues unabated. Seen from my side of the Atlantic, the phenomenal success of the Left Behind books appears puzzling, even bizarre[1]. Few in the U.K. hold the belief on which the popular series of novels is based: that there will be a literal “rapture” in which believers will be snatched up to heaven, leaving empty cars crashing on freeways and kids coming home from school only to find that their parents have been taken to be with Jesus while they have been “left behind.” This pseudo-theological version of Home Alone has reportedly frightened many children into some kind of (distorted) faith.
This dramatic end-time scenario is based (wrongly, as we shall see) on Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
What on earth (or in heaven) did Paul mean?
It is Paul who should be credited with creating this scenario. Jesus himself, as I have argued in various books, never predicted such an event[2]. The gospel passages about “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (Mark 13:26, 14:62, for example) are about Jesus’ vindication, his “coming” to heaven from earth. The parables about a returning king or master (for example, Luke 19:11-27) were originally about God returning to Jerusalem, not about Jesus returning to earth. This, Jesus seemed to believe, was an event within space-time history, not one that would end it forever.
The Ascension of Jesus and the Second Coming are nevertheless vital Christian doctrines[3], and I don’t deny that I believe some future event will result in the personal presence of Jesus within God’s new creation. This is taught throughout the New Testament outside the Gospels. But this event won’t in any way resemble the Left Behind account. Understanding what will happen requires a far more sophisticated cosmology than the one in which “heaven” is somewhere up there in our universe, rather than in a different dimension, a different space-time, altogether.
The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).
Paul’s description of Jesus’ reappearance in 1 Thessalonians 4 is a brightly colored version of what he says in two other passages, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and Philippians 3:20-21: At Jesus’ “coming” or “appearing,” those who are still alive will be “changed” or “transformed” so that their mortal bodies will become incorruptible, deathless. This is all that Paul intends to say in Thessalonians, but here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message. Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.
First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah. The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.
Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.
Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.
Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth, as the Left Behind series suggests, but as a vivid and biblically allusive description of the great transformation of the present world of which he speaks elsewhere.
Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it? And how can we do so, as he did, in such a way as to subvert the political imagery of the dominant and dehumanizing empires of our world? We might begin by asking, What view of the world is sustained, even legitimized, by the Left Behind ideology? How might it be confronted and subverted by genuinely biblical thinking? For a start, is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon? Wouldn’t this be overturned if we recaptured Paul’s wholistic vision of God’s whole creation?
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.htm
---
[1] Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind (Cambridge, UK: Tyndale House Publishing, 1996). Eight other titles have followed, all runaway bestsellers.
[2] See my Jesus and the Victory of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996); the discussions in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999); and Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), chapters 13 and 14.
[3] Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
reposted from an blog entry onthis site on Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Galatians 3:19-25: Don’t be a McChicken
One day at the McDonald farm there is a rumbling in the air; something is a foot. In the chicken coop something isn’t just quite right. The old farmer walks all around the chicken wire fence. It seems to be in tact. The barbed wire along the perimeter looks undisturbed. Everything looks fine as he locks up the hens for the night. But inside the henhouse on the top rung, something is stirring…it is Henrietta the poultry hen.
Now, as soon as Farmer McDonald closes the door to the coop, Henrietta the hen, speaks up: “It’s time.” Quickly Henrietta, Polly, Mick, and all the chickens on the top rung run to the southeast corner of the coop. They peck and they peck the ground in the corner like never before. Last night they had almost made it. Tonight would be the night. Finally – breakthrough! Henrietta and the other chickens are free. They are free from the farmer’s coop. They are free from the barbed wire and the chicken wire; they are free from the tedious ritual and routine. They are free!
They spend the next morning roaming around the yard, exploring the whole farm. They eat what they want, when then want. They can be near or wander far away. They talk. They talk and they talk some more: it’s a hen’s life. They spend that whole day walking around eating what and when they want and really enjoying the full freedom from the yard. At the end of the day, they perch on a branch of tree across the road from the farm and cuddle up for the night. It is good.
They have a nice rest but in the morning when they wake up, they notice something on the road: it is Mick the Chicken crossing the road. They wonder. Why did the chicken cross the road? Mick is walking back towards the farm.
Mick is walking back to the coop. She goes across the road, to the fence and through the same crack under the chicken wire fence. She walks around the corner and up the walkway onto her old bar in the farmer’s small, confining chicken coop. The farmer then notices the crack in the fence and repairs it quickly. Mick is trapped.
Henrietta can’t believe it. She sees the whole thing where she is sitting, still free, looking on from her perch on other side of the road. She sees Mick, of her own accord, trapped all over again on the farm.
Mick was free and then she just goes back to be trapped all over again and it is even worse then she thought at first. As Henrietta scans the farm and hears the noises: here a cluck, there a cluck everywhere a cluck, cluck. She remembers, Mick the Chicken is on McDonald’s farm. The Mick Chicken is back at MacDonald’s! And you know what happens to McChickens at McDonald’s.[1] They get eaten. Mick is trapped.
And this is just like the Galatians to whom Paul writes his letter: the Galatians have become just as trapped by the Law of the Old Covenant – the way they used to do things between the Exodus and Resurrection - as Mick the chicken is by McDonalds. And Paul is quite concerned.
related:
Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Don't be a McChicken: Covenant and Galatians 3:19-25' in the Journal of Aggressive Christianity Issue 67 (June - July, 2010), pp. 35-38. Available on-line:
Captain Michael Ramsay 'Galatians 3:19-25: Don't be a McChicken...' Presented to Nipawin Corps on January 20, 2008 and to Tisdale Corps on January 27, 2008. Available on-line: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/galatians-319-25-dont-be-mcchicken.html
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
COVENANT PART 4: The Apostle Paul's Understanding of the Nature and Function of the Law
This is the fourth of four postings on Paul's understanding of covenant and the Law as recorded in Romans Chapters 1 and 2
Paul’s understanding of the nature and function of the Law are important to comprehend in order to fully appreciate Pauline theology. Paul believed that as the promise was given to the Jews - though not to them exclusively and that it was even many years prior to the existence of either Jacob or the Jewish people (Galatians 3:17; Romans 4:13; cf. Genesis 12:3; Acts 2:23-25) - so too the Law applied equally to both Jew and Gentile in that God would not treat the sins of the Jews significantly different from those of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14-16; 3:27-31): this was indeed contrary to popular Jewish understanding.[1] The Law in no way superseded the covenant promise (Galatians 3:17).
It is in verses 2:12-16 where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in his letter to the Romans, making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law who are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.
In Romans 2:14-15, the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law is mentioned: even they, who do not have the Law, are able to do what the Law requires as much as anyone else is for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16; cf. 3:27-31).
The problem is though that no one will be declared righteous under the Law (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16, 21; 3:11, cf. 3:2). No one can perfectly obey to the Law (cf. Romans 2:3, 14-15, 17-26; 3:29-31; 9:20). Those then that attempt to obtain righteousness through an adherence to the Law will fail and thus be under a curse (Galatians 3:10; cf. Deuteronomy 27:26). However, as many scholars have pointed out, the Law demands faithfulness, not sinless perfection[2] and Paul's position is that his gospel upholds and is supported by the Law[3] (Romans 3.31; cf. Matthew 5:17).
“Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Law; but if you break the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the Law, will not their uncircumcision be regard as circumcision? (Romans 2:25-26).” In Romans 2:25-29, two groups of people are being addressed. This is relevant to an understanding of the nature and function of the Law: The first group is comprised of Jews who do not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). The other is comprised of either Christian Gentiles (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) or non-believing Gentiles.
N.T. Wright argues, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[4]
Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[5] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, Paul is pointing to the fact a Jewish claim to any exclusivity on the basis of the content of their Law must contend with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are practiced by other people as well. As that is the case, it is what one does, rather than what one has in relation to the Law that is important.[6]
James Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement in the context of Romans 2 are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating, “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (Romans 2:15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. Romans 2:13).”[7] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (Romans 2:14-16).
In Romans 2:29, Paul refers to a spiritual circumcision of the heart (cf., Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25, 26). Physical circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law. Paul argues that God “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (Romans 2:27; cf. Galatians 3:10).” The apostle Paul, later in his letter to the Romans, cites Moses: “Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the Law, that ‘the person who does these things will live by them’ (Romans 10:5).” The Gentiles are now grafted into the vine; therefore, as James Dunn argues, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment.”[8]
In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he states clearly that, pertaining to relying on the Law and a physical circumcision that “if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you…every man who lets himself be circumcised…is obliged to obey the entire Law. You who want to be justified by the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:2-5).” No one is justified by the Law (Galatians 3:11).
Romans 2:17-24 further addresses the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul responds to a Jewish claim that they can know God’s will and determine what is best because they are instructed in the Law (Romans 2:18) and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:19-20).” Paul makes the point that the Jews are not better or more knowledgeable than others. He does this through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. Romans 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in Romans 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[9]
Paul addresses this idea in his letter to the Galatians. As recorded in chapter three, he asks if the Law is indeed opposed to the promises of God (Galatians 3:21)? He responds, “Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the Law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe (Galatians 3:21-22).”
Paul is recorded as asking and answering, “Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator (Galatians 3:19).” Now, however, “There is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:28-29).”
The Law reveals that we are guilty of sin (Romans 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (Romans 2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (Romans 2:2; 3:19-20). Both the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[10]
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
---
[1] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 126. Cf. also NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
[2] Timothy G. Gombis “The 'Transgressor' and the 'Curse of the Law': The Logic of Paul's Argument in Galatians 2-3.” New Testament Studies 53, 81-93. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 83, see also Norman H. Young, 'Who's Cursed - and Why? (Galatians 3.10-14)'~ JBL 117 (1998) 79-92, 82-3; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 140, 147; Michael Cranford, 'The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise in Galatians 3.10 and 5.3'. NovT 36 (1994) 242-58, 244-5, 248; James M. Scott, '"For as Many as are of Works of the Law are Under a Curse" (Galatians 3.10)' Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 187-221,189; Richard B. Hays, 'Galatians', The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 11 (ed.L. E. Keck et al; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000) 181-348,257.
[3] Timothy G. Gombis, p. 85.
[4] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 136.
[5] Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans. Interpretation: (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985), 51.
[6] Ibid.
[7] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), 122.
[8] Ibid., 123.
[9] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 37.
[10] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” p. 37.
Paul’s understanding of the nature and function of the Law are important to comprehend in order to fully appreciate Pauline theology. Paul believed that as the promise was given to the Jews - though not to them exclusively and that it was even many years prior to the existence of either Jacob or the Jewish people (Galatians 3:17; Romans 4:13; cf. Genesis 12:3; Acts 2:23-25) - so too the Law applied equally to both Jew and Gentile in that God would not treat the sins of the Jews significantly different from those of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14-16; 3:27-31): this was indeed contrary to popular Jewish understanding.[1] The Law in no way superseded the covenant promise (Galatians 3:17).
It is in verses 2:12-16 where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in his letter to the Romans, making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law who are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.
In Romans 2:14-15, the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law is mentioned: even they, who do not have the Law, are able to do what the Law requires as much as anyone else is for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16; cf. 3:27-31).
The problem is though that no one will be declared righteous under the Law (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16, 21; 3:11, cf. 3:2). No one can perfectly obey to the Law (cf. Romans 2:3, 14-15, 17-26; 3:29-31; 9:20). Those then that attempt to obtain righteousness through an adherence to the Law will fail and thus be under a curse (Galatians 3:10; cf. Deuteronomy 27:26). However, as many scholars have pointed out, the Law demands faithfulness, not sinless perfection[2] and Paul's position is that his gospel upholds and is supported by the Law[3] (Romans 3.31; cf. Matthew 5:17).
“Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Law; but if you break the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the Law, will not their uncircumcision be regard as circumcision? (Romans 2:25-26).” In Romans 2:25-29, two groups of people are being addressed. This is relevant to an understanding of the nature and function of the Law: The first group is comprised of Jews who do not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). The other is comprised of either Christian Gentiles (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) or non-believing Gentiles.
N.T. Wright argues, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[4]
Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[5] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, Paul is pointing to the fact a Jewish claim to any exclusivity on the basis of the content of their Law must contend with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are practiced by other people as well. As that is the case, it is what one does, rather than what one has in relation to the Law that is important.[6]
James Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement in the context of Romans 2 are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating, “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (Romans 2:15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. Romans 2:13).”[7] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (Romans 2:14-16).
In Romans 2:29, Paul refers to a spiritual circumcision of the heart (cf., Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25, 26). Physical circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law. Paul argues that God “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (Romans 2:27; cf. Galatians 3:10).” The apostle Paul, later in his letter to the Romans, cites Moses: “Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the Law, that ‘the person who does these things will live by them’ (Romans 10:5).” The Gentiles are now grafted into the vine; therefore, as James Dunn argues, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment.”[8]
In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he states clearly that, pertaining to relying on the Law and a physical circumcision that “if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you…every man who lets himself be circumcised…is obliged to obey the entire Law. You who want to be justified by the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:2-5).” No one is justified by the Law (Galatians 3:11).
Romans 2:17-24 further addresses the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul responds to a Jewish claim that they can know God’s will and determine what is best because they are instructed in the Law (Romans 2:18) and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:19-20).” Paul makes the point that the Jews are not better or more knowledgeable than others. He does this through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. Romans 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in Romans 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[9]
Paul addresses this idea in his letter to the Galatians. As recorded in chapter three, he asks if the Law is indeed opposed to the promises of God (Galatians 3:21)? He responds, “Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the Law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe (Galatians 3:21-22).”
Paul is recorded as asking and answering, “Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator (Galatians 3:19).” Now, however, “There is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:28-29).”
The Law reveals that we are guilty of sin (Romans 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (Romans 2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (Romans 2:2; 3:19-20). Both the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[10]
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
---
[1] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 126. Cf. also NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
[2] Timothy G. Gombis “The 'Transgressor' and the 'Curse of the Law': The Logic of Paul's Argument in Galatians 2-3.” New Testament Studies 53, 81-93. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 83, see also Norman H. Young, 'Who's Cursed - and Why? (Galatians 3.10-14)'~ JBL 117 (1998) 79-92, 82-3; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 140, 147; Michael Cranford, 'The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise in Galatians 3.10 and 5.3'. NovT 36 (1994) 242-58, 244-5, 248; James M. Scott, '"For as Many as are of Works of the Law are Under a Curse" (Galatians 3.10)' Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 187-221,189; Richard B. Hays, 'Galatians', The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 11 (ed.L. E. Keck et al; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000) 181-348,257.
[3] Timothy G. Gombis, p. 85.
[4] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 136.
[5] Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans. Interpretation: (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985), 51.
[6] Ibid.
[7] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), 122.
[8] Ibid., 123.
[9] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 37.
[10] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” p. 37.
COVENANT PART 3 (The Good News of Romans: Paul and the Gospel and Salvation, Romans 1:16-17)
It is my intention in this paper to build upon the framework that I laid in my previous two papers: Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16 and Paul’s Understanding of the Role of Law as Reflected in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29. Paul’s understanding of the gospel and salvation is very closely related to both his understanding of the Law and of the human condition.
Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid-to-late 50s and is addressed to a Gentile dominated church.[1] In the mid-to-late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD). Immediately prior to this time, in 49 AD, Nero’s predecessor, Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome. The remaining Christians then would be non-Jews. When Nero officially ascended the throne in 54, many of the Jewish Christians returned. Things had changed[2] and this was the historical context of Paul’s letter.
Paul’s letter to the Romans is clearly an important work. N.T. Wright claims that “Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece.”[3] Pertaining to the theme of Romans, I have to acknowledge that, as Douglas Moo warns, “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4]
I would argue, however, that if these verses do not convey the theme of the entire letter, they certainly do reflect Paul’s understanding of salvation. It is significant that immediately prior to the sections of Romans that I examined in my earlier papers (1:18-32; 2:1-16,12-16, 17-24, 25-29) -where Paul introduces his understanding of the Law and the human condition to his readers- he is recorded as stating, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed through faith for faith (ek pisteos eis pistin); as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous (dikaios) will live by [or ‘out of’] faith (ek pisteōs)’ (1:16-17).” I would argue, then, that Paul’s understanding of the human condition and the Law, as expressed in Romans, should be interpreted in light of this gospel of salvation. Drawing on my previous work and citing other pertinent sections of Paul’s letter to the Romans, I will focus on the gospel and salvation according to Paul in his letter to the Romans, as reflected in Chapter 1:16-17.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel…
Verse 16 records Paul’s declaration that he is not ashamed of the gospel. It is likely that there is a connection here with Jesus’ claims that if one is ashamed of him, then the “Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; cf. also Pss 31:1-3; 71:1-2; 143:1).” The word ‘gospel’ is a rendering of the Greek word euangelion, which means ‘good news’ or ‘good message’ (cf. Isa 40:9, 52:7). “The gospel is not merely the initial proclamation of Christ which wins converts, but is the whole Christian message and claim in terms of the rest of the letter.”[5] For Paul, “the gospel was the sovereign message, from none other than God, concerning Jesus the Messiah, God’s unique Son…[It is] news that Jesus had become the spearhead of God’s ‘age to come;’ news that, within this new age, the principalities and powers…and sin and death themselves had been defeated and were now summoned to allegiance.”[6] Paul here is making a clear reference to his earlier statements in the prologue to his letter to the Romans. He states in the salutation, 1:1-7 (which is one very long sentence in the NRSV translation):
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
In this opening statement, Paul clearly links this gospel of God (v.1) with the good news of Jesus (v.3) who is descended from David (the anticipated human lineage of the Messiah or ‘Son of Man’) and declared to be the Son of God.[7] Paul declares that he was specifically set apart for this gospel (v.1) which was promised beforehand (v.2) and is now revealed. It is in this gospel that the power for salvation is declared as a result of the resurrection (1:4, 16; cf. 1Cor 15:1-5, 17-22).
Verse 16 also relates to Paul’s statements in the thanksgiving section of the prologue (vv. 8-15), where Paul argues that through mentioning this gospel of God’s Son, he is actually doing a service for God with his spirit (v. 9) and, as such, he is indeed eager to render this service by proclaiming this gospel (v. 15; cf. 15:16).
In Romans 2:14-16, Paul refers to this gospel of which he is not ashamed as being written on people’s hearts in a probable reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34.[8] There it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites.’ Paul alludes to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing, which is now fulfilled, for all nations of the earth (cf. 2:15; 4:13, 16-17; 9:7-8; 10:12-13; Gal 3:6-9). This gospel proclaims the good news that on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:15). There are a number of other direct references to this euangelion throughout the letter to the Romans (cf. 11:28). Most of them specifically relate to Paul’s duty and ambition to proclaim this gospel (15:16,19,20) “that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedient faith (16:15).” This indeed is good news of which he is not ashamed.
…it is the power of God for Salvation…
The term translated ‘salvation’ has a range of meaning from ‘bodily health, preservation, and safety (cf. e.g., Mark 5:23,28,34; 6:56; 10:52; Acts 27:34), to – as is frequently the case in the Psalms and Isaiah - deliverance from peril and restoration to wholeness. God’s righteousness here is linked with the provided salvation. (cf. e.g., Pss 35:27-28; 72:1-4; 85:9-13; 96:13; 98:2-3, 9; Isa 9:7; 11:1-2; 45:8, 22-25; 51:5-6; 53:10b-11; 61:1-2, 11; Jer 23:5-6; Mal 4:2). “In other Psalm texts, it is surely striking that the psalmist prays for the Lord to deliver him in his righteousness (Ps 31:1; 143:1, 11; 71:1-2, 15; cf. 79:9). In these instances, deliverance from the enemy is the godly person’s salvation.”[9] In Paul’s understanding this salvation is “primarily eschatological, a hope for the future, deliverance from final destruction, the end product for God’s good purpose for humanity (see particularly 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Cor 13:15; 5:5; Phil 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8-9).”[10]
Good news is the power (dynamis) of God for this salvation (see also 11:23). It is contrasted with the Law and its powerlessness to save (8:3) and the weakness of our state as sinners when Christ died for us (5:6-8). God’s power (cf. 9:19-22) has been understood and seen through the things He has made from the time of creation itself (1:19-20). It is by power that God has kept His promises to Abraham (4:13-22; Gen 12:3), defeated Pharaoh (9:17; Exod 5-14), and it is through the power of His Spirit that He enabled Paul to proclaim the gospel (15:19-20) and us to abound in hope (15:13).
It is this same power that Christ has and that was used to raise Christ from the dead (1:4). This is significant, for it is the act of the resurrection that showed Paul that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. False Messiahs were not unheard of at this time in history and a strong indication of the falsity of their claim would be their death – especially on a tree (cf. Gal 3:13) at the hands of Israel’s occupier.
The phrase ‘in power’ in Verse 4 then is important for, as Dunn argues, it indicates “Christ’s divine son-ship (v.3) had been ‘upgraded’ or ‘enhanced’ by the resurrection, so that he shared more fully in the power of God[11]…able to act on and through people in the way Paul implies elsewhere (e.g., 8:10; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 2:20; Col 2:6-7)…The full extent of God’s purpose could only be realized through Jesus as Messiah (of Israel) risen from the dead to become the Son of God in power (for all).”[12]
Dynamis “seems to refer to both the power of God that raised Jesus from the dead (cf. 1 Cor 6:14; 15:24, 43; 2 Cor 13:4; Eph 1:19-10; Phil 3:10) and thereby declared his identity as Messiah, and to the powerful nature of his son-ship, through which he confronts all the powers of the world, up to and including death itself, with the news of a different and more effective type of power altogether. Paul, of course sees this same power at work now, by the Spirit, through the proclamation of the gospel and in the lives of those who are ‘in the Messiah’ (see, e.g., 1:16; 11:23; 15:13; 1 Cor 1:24; 2:4-5).”[13] This salvation then is by the power of God’s gospel and this is indeed good news.
…to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek…
Everyone -whether Jew or Gentile- stands equally before God. “Contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] The Jews will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1),” for even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts (1:14) but, as Paul argues elsewhere in Romans, neither is truly able to do the Law (Torah) perfectly (cf. 2:3; 14-15, 17-26, 3:29-31).
The equality of the Gentile to the Jew before God, as expressed by Paul in Romans in no way negates the primacy of the Jews (cf. 11:7, 11). It was only “through their stumbling [that] salvation has come to the Gentiles…Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (11:12-13).” In chapters nine through eleven of Romans, Paul goes into great detail about Israel’s election (9:4-18), rejection (10:1-4, 21; 11:15, 28), and future acceptance of the gospel of salvation (11:1-11, 23-36). Now “even those of Israel if they do not persist in unbelief [or rejection of the gospel], will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (11:23).” Salvation then comes ‘to everyone who has faith, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.’
…For in it the righteousness of God…
Paul is arguing in Romans that through the gospel, the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed (cf. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26 10:3). Righteousness is not from the Law (3:21) and we are not inherently righteous (10:3; cf. Isa 46:12; Deut 9:6). This righteousness is sometimes called a ‘faith righteousness’ separate from works[15] (1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:4, 6). It relates to the reason why the gospel contains the power that it does. It is not referring to the Divine faithfulness to ethnic Israel, it instead refers to the fact that, in Jesus the Messiah, the covenant purpose of God for Israel was finally fulfilled; Israel was elected to bear the creator’s saving purposes for the whole world.[16] The concept is not merely individualistic; it has a corporate and even a global side.
Any righteousness that we do display comes directly from God (3:22, 24; 10:3; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous[17] (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16). And as such, we cannot obtain righteousness by either merit or the Law (3:21) so we should submit ourselves to God in order to be instruments of His righteousness (6:13). We do not need to be slaves to sin (6:16-18) which leads to death. But rather we are free to present our “members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification (6:19).” We have been freed from sin and enslaved to God. The gift that we receive is eternal life. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (6:22-23).”
…is revealed through faith for faith…
The salvific righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel itself. It is revealed ‘through faith for faith’, or ‘out of faith into faith’ (ek pisteos eis pistin). These words in 1:17 have been understood to mean the growth in faith ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faithfulness of believers,’[18] ‘out of the faith of Jesus and into the faith of believers’[19] or even ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faith of believers.’[20] Just as righteousness is from God so is faith or faithfulness (4:20, 12:3; Eph 2:8; James 2:5; 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Heb 12:2). It is God’s faithfulness that makes possible our faith or faithfulness. Paul states, as recorded in 3:3-4, ‘‘What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true…’’ This is important to bear in mind as one reads further into 3: 21-26:
But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ or all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
It is significant that ‘faith in Jesus’ in this passage can also be interpreted as the faithfulness of Jesus. This, I submit, makes sense from the perspective of 1:17 and 3:3-4. Prior to the above passage (3:21-26), Paul had just finished making his case that our faithlessness can in no way nullify the faithfulness of God (3:4-5); therefore it follows that, as it is the righteousness of God rather than the righteousness of the works of humankind; so, also it is the faith or faithfulness of Christ (cf. Heb 3:6, 12:2) – as Paul himself makes clear earlier in the chapter (3:4-5) – rather than that of ourselves that provides salvation. Redemption is in Jesus (v.24) whom God offered as a sacrifice of atonement (v.25). It is by his grace as a gift (v.24), rather than anything to be obtained by our works of faith; it is from the faithfulness of God to the faith and subsequent faithfulness of believers: the power of the salvific righteousness of God is experienced in the gospel, ‘through faith for faith.’
…as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith’
It is then the one who is righteous who will live by faith. And this faith is both, as Dunn declares, “the initial act of receiving the gospel and the continuing process toward salvation.”[21] Faith is a result of righteousness (3:22; 4:5, 9,11,13; 9:30; 10:6) and righteousness is from God (3:22, 24; 10:3, 17; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16) and it is His righteousness that enables us to be righteous, just as it is Christ’s faithfulness that enables us to live by faith.
Conclusion
Read in the context of the entire letter of Romans, Paul’s concept of the gospel and salvation is reflected succinctly in Romans 1:16-17. Paul is not ashamed of the good message of Jesus and God. This good news has the power of God for the salvation of everyone with faith. Salvation was provided through - and first to - the Jew. It was extended to the Gentile: all may be saved. God’s righteousness – not ours – is revealed in this good news through faith for faith. And as a result of the gospel power of the resurrection, God’s righteousness, and faithfulness, we can experience righteousness, come to and continue in faith. God, through His righteousness and faithfulness, has already provided for the salvation of everyone and this is indeed good news.
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), xiv.
[2] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 38-39.
[3] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 395.
[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 24.
[5] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 47.
[6] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, p. 427.
[7] Ibid., 416: Others have been referred to as ‘sons of God’ in the scriptures: angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan3:25), Israel (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; 13:13: Mal 1:6), the seed as David (1 Sam 7:14; 1 Cor 7:13; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27) and “Paul, in fact, lived in a moment of transition in the history of this phrase and helped it on its way to subsequent development.”
[8] Cf. for a different opinion, Everett H. Harrison, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/III. The Need for Salvation: The Plight of Mankind (1:18-3:20)/B. Principles of Judgment (2:1-16), Book Version: 4.0.2: “This ought not to be confused with the promise of the law written in the heart as depicted in Jeremiah 31:33, because if that were the case, as Nygren observes, Gentiles "would indeed have the law, and that in a more intimate way than the Jew had it" (in loc.).”
[9] Don Garlington, “A ‘New Perspective’ Reading of Central Texts in Romans 1-4,” Prepared for Evangelical Theological Society: 15 August 2006. Cited 20 02 2007. Online: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Rom1-4.pdf.12.
[10] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 39.
[11] See Mark 13:32 where Jesus claims his own knowledge as less than his Father’s prior to his death and resurrection. Also see Mark 6:5, where it is claimed that under the circumstances, “he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” This should not be explained away entirely either by the other two gospel accounts.
[12] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 14.
[13] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, pp. 418-419.
[14] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126., cf. also N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, p. 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
[15] John Reumann, “Righteousness (NT),” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6. ed. David Noel Freedman, 1st ed. (New York, New York: Doubleday, 1992), 764-765.
[16] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” p. 65.
[17] John Reumann, p. 765: ‘One can view the ‘righteousness of God’ (8 of the 9 or 10 occurrences of dikaiosynē theou in Paul occur in Romans), especially the four examples in 3:21-26, as the basis for the entire letter, or at least 1:16-5:21.’
[18] Ibid., 765
[19] Roy Jeal
[20] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 48, claims that Paul’s ambiguity as to whether faith or faithfulness is an intentional feature of Paul’s letter.
[21] Ibid., 49.
Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid-to-late 50s and is addressed to a Gentile dominated church.[1] In the mid-to-late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD). Immediately prior to this time, in 49 AD, Nero’s predecessor, Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome. The remaining Christians then would be non-Jews. When Nero officially ascended the throne in 54, many of the Jewish Christians returned. Things had changed[2] and this was the historical context of Paul’s letter.
Paul’s letter to the Romans is clearly an important work. N.T. Wright claims that “Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece.”[3] Pertaining to the theme of Romans, I have to acknowledge that, as Douglas Moo warns, “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4]
I would argue, however, that if these verses do not convey the theme of the entire letter, they certainly do reflect Paul’s understanding of salvation. It is significant that immediately prior to the sections of Romans that I examined in my earlier papers (1:18-32; 2:1-16,12-16, 17-24, 25-29) -where Paul introduces his understanding of the Law and the human condition to his readers- he is recorded as stating, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed through faith for faith (ek pisteos eis pistin); as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous (dikaios) will live by [or ‘out of’] faith (ek pisteōs)’ (1:16-17).” I would argue, then, that Paul’s understanding of the human condition and the Law, as expressed in Romans, should be interpreted in light of this gospel of salvation. Drawing on my previous work and citing other pertinent sections of Paul’s letter to the Romans, I will focus on the gospel and salvation according to Paul in his letter to the Romans, as reflected in Chapter 1:16-17.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel…
Verse 16 records Paul’s declaration that he is not ashamed of the gospel. It is likely that there is a connection here with Jesus’ claims that if one is ashamed of him, then the “Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; cf. also Pss 31:1-3; 71:1-2; 143:1).” The word ‘gospel’ is a rendering of the Greek word euangelion, which means ‘good news’ or ‘good message’ (cf. Isa 40:9, 52:7). “The gospel is not merely the initial proclamation of Christ which wins converts, but is the whole Christian message and claim in terms of the rest of the letter.”[5] For Paul, “the gospel was the sovereign message, from none other than God, concerning Jesus the Messiah, God’s unique Son…[It is] news that Jesus had become the spearhead of God’s ‘age to come;’ news that, within this new age, the principalities and powers…and sin and death themselves had been defeated and were now summoned to allegiance.”[6] Paul here is making a clear reference to his earlier statements in the prologue to his letter to the Romans. He states in the salutation, 1:1-7 (which is one very long sentence in the NRSV translation):
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
In this opening statement, Paul clearly links this gospel of God (v.1) with the good news of Jesus (v.3) who is descended from David (the anticipated human lineage of the Messiah or ‘Son of Man’) and declared to be the Son of God.[7] Paul declares that he was specifically set apart for this gospel (v.1) which was promised beforehand (v.2) and is now revealed. It is in this gospel that the power for salvation is declared as a result of the resurrection (1:4, 16; cf. 1Cor 15:1-5, 17-22).
Verse 16 also relates to Paul’s statements in the thanksgiving section of the prologue (vv. 8-15), where Paul argues that through mentioning this gospel of God’s Son, he is actually doing a service for God with his spirit (v. 9) and, as such, he is indeed eager to render this service by proclaiming this gospel (v. 15; cf. 15:16).
In Romans 2:14-16, Paul refers to this gospel of which he is not ashamed as being written on people’s hearts in a probable reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34.[8] There it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites.’ Paul alludes to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing, which is now fulfilled, for all nations of the earth (cf. 2:15; 4:13, 16-17; 9:7-8; 10:12-13; Gal 3:6-9). This gospel proclaims the good news that on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:15). There are a number of other direct references to this euangelion throughout the letter to the Romans (cf. 11:28). Most of them specifically relate to Paul’s duty and ambition to proclaim this gospel (15:16,19,20) “that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedient faith (16:15).” This indeed is good news of which he is not ashamed.
…it is the power of God for Salvation…
The term translated ‘salvation’ has a range of meaning from ‘bodily health, preservation, and safety (cf. e.g., Mark 5:23,28,34; 6:56; 10:52; Acts 27:34), to – as is frequently the case in the Psalms and Isaiah - deliverance from peril and restoration to wholeness. God’s righteousness here is linked with the provided salvation. (cf. e.g., Pss 35:27-28; 72:1-4; 85:9-13; 96:13; 98:2-3, 9; Isa 9:7; 11:1-2; 45:8, 22-25; 51:5-6; 53:10b-11; 61:1-2, 11; Jer 23:5-6; Mal 4:2). “In other Psalm texts, it is surely striking that the psalmist prays for the Lord to deliver him in his righteousness (Ps 31:1; 143:1, 11; 71:1-2, 15; cf. 79:9). In these instances, deliverance from the enemy is the godly person’s salvation.”[9] In Paul’s understanding this salvation is “primarily eschatological, a hope for the future, deliverance from final destruction, the end product for God’s good purpose for humanity (see particularly 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Cor 13:15; 5:5; Phil 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8-9).”[10]
Good news is the power (dynamis) of God for this salvation (see also 11:23). It is contrasted with the Law and its powerlessness to save (8:3) and the weakness of our state as sinners when Christ died for us (5:6-8). God’s power (cf. 9:19-22) has been understood and seen through the things He has made from the time of creation itself (1:19-20). It is by power that God has kept His promises to Abraham (4:13-22; Gen 12:3), defeated Pharaoh (9:17; Exod 5-14), and it is through the power of His Spirit that He enabled Paul to proclaim the gospel (15:19-20) and us to abound in hope (15:13).
It is this same power that Christ has and that was used to raise Christ from the dead (1:4). This is significant, for it is the act of the resurrection that showed Paul that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. False Messiahs were not unheard of at this time in history and a strong indication of the falsity of their claim would be their death – especially on a tree (cf. Gal 3:13) at the hands of Israel’s occupier.
The phrase ‘in power’ in Verse 4 then is important for, as Dunn argues, it indicates “Christ’s divine son-ship (v.3) had been ‘upgraded’ or ‘enhanced’ by the resurrection, so that he shared more fully in the power of God[11]…able to act on and through people in the way Paul implies elsewhere (e.g., 8:10; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 2:20; Col 2:6-7)…The full extent of God’s purpose could only be realized through Jesus as Messiah (of Israel) risen from the dead to become the Son of God in power (for all).”[12]
Dynamis “seems to refer to both the power of God that raised Jesus from the dead (cf. 1 Cor 6:14; 15:24, 43; 2 Cor 13:4; Eph 1:19-10; Phil 3:10) and thereby declared his identity as Messiah, and to the powerful nature of his son-ship, through which he confronts all the powers of the world, up to and including death itself, with the news of a different and more effective type of power altogether. Paul, of course sees this same power at work now, by the Spirit, through the proclamation of the gospel and in the lives of those who are ‘in the Messiah’ (see, e.g., 1:16; 11:23; 15:13; 1 Cor 1:24; 2:4-5).”[13] This salvation then is by the power of God’s gospel and this is indeed good news.
…to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek…
Everyone -whether Jew or Gentile- stands equally before God. “Contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] The Jews will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1),” for even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts (1:14) but, as Paul argues elsewhere in Romans, neither is truly able to do the Law (Torah) perfectly (cf. 2:3; 14-15, 17-26, 3:29-31).
The equality of the Gentile to the Jew before God, as expressed by Paul in Romans in no way negates the primacy of the Jews (cf. 11:7, 11). It was only “through their stumbling [that] salvation has come to the Gentiles…Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (11:12-13).” In chapters nine through eleven of Romans, Paul goes into great detail about Israel’s election (9:4-18), rejection (10:1-4, 21; 11:15, 28), and future acceptance of the gospel of salvation (11:1-11, 23-36). Now “even those of Israel if they do not persist in unbelief [or rejection of the gospel], will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (11:23).” Salvation then comes ‘to everyone who has faith, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.’
…For in it the righteousness of God…
Paul is arguing in Romans that through the gospel, the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed (cf. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26 10:3). Righteousness is not from the Law (3:21) and we are not inherently righteous (10:3; cf. Isa 46:12; Deut 9:6). This righteousness is sometimes called a ‘faith righteousness’ separate from works[15] (1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:4, 6). It relates to the reason why the gospel contains the power that it does. It is not referring to the Divine faithfulness to ethnic Israel, it instead refers to the fact that, in Jesus the Messiah, the covenant purpose of God for Israel was finally fulfilled; Israel was elected to bear the creator’s saving purposes for the whole world.[16] The concept is not merely individualistic; it has a corporate and even a global side.
Any righteousness that we do display comes directly from God (3:22, 24; 10:3; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous[17] (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16). And as such, we cannot obtain righteousness by either merit or the Law (3:21) so we should submit ourselves to God in order to be instruments of His righteousness (6:13). We do not need to be slaves to sin (6:16-18) which leads to death. But rather we are free to present our “members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification (6:19).” We have been freed from sin and enslaved to God. The gift that we receive is eternal life. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (6:22-23).”
…is revealed through faith for faith…
The salvific righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel itself. It is revealed ‘through faith for faith’, or ‘out of faith into faith’ (ek pisteos eis pistin). These words in 1:17 have been understood to mean the growth in faith ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faithfulness of believers,’[18] ‘out of the faith of Jesus and into the faith of believers’[19] or even ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faith of believers.’[20] Just as righteousness is from God so is faith or faithfulness (4:20, 12:3; Eph 2:8; James 2:5; 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Heb 12:2). It is God’s faithfulness that makes possible our faith or faithfulness. Paul states, as recorded in 3:3-4, ‘‘What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true…’’ This is important to bear in mind as one reads further into 3: 21-26:
But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ or all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
It is significant that ‘faith in Jesus’ in this passage can also be interpreted as the faithfulness of Jesus. This, I submit, makes sense from the perspective of 1:17 and 3:3-4. Prior to the above passage (3:21-26), Paul had just finished making his case that our faithlessness can in no way nullify the faithfulness of God (3:4-5); therefore it follows that, as it is the righteousness of God rather than the righteousness of the works of humankind; so, also it is the faith or faithfulness of Christ (cf. Heb 3:6, 12:2) – as Paul himself makes clear earlier in the chapter (3:4-5) – rather than that of ourselves that provides salvation. Redemption is in Jesus (v.24) whom God offered as a sacrifice of atonement (v.25). It is by his grace as a gift (v.24), rather than anything to be obtained by our works of faith; it is from the faithfulness of God to the faith and subsequent faithfulness of believers: the power of the salvific righteousness of God is experienced in the gospel, ‘through faith for faith.’
…as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith’
It is then the one who is righteous who will live by faith. And this faith is both, as Dunn declares, “the initial act of receiving the gospel and the continuing process toward salvation.”[21] Faith is a result of righteousness (3:22; 4:5, 9,11,13; 9:30; 10:6) and righteousness is from God (3:22, 24; 10:3, 17; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16) and it is His righteousness that enables us to be righteous, just as it is Christ’s faithfulness that enables us to live by faith.
Conclusion
Read in the context of the entire letter of Romans, Paul’s concept of the gospel and salvation is reflected succinctly in Romans 1:16-17. Paul is not ashamed of the good message of Jesus and God. This good news has the power of God for the salvation of everyone with faith. Salvation was provided through - and first to - the Jew. It was extended to the Gentile: all may be saved. God’s righteousness – not ours – is revealed in this good news through faith for faith. And as a result of the gospel power of the resurrection, God’s righteousness, and faithfulness, we can experience righteousness, come to and continue in faith. God, through His righteousness and faithfulness, has already provided for the salvation of everyone and this is indeed good news.
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), xiv.
[2] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 38-39.
[3] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 395.
[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 24.
[5] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 47.
[6] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, p. 427.
[7] Ibid., 416: Others have been referred to as ‘sons of God’ in the scriptures: angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan3:25), Israel (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; 13:13: Mal 1:6), the seed as David (1 Sam 7:14; 1 Cor 7:13; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27) and “Paul, in fact, lived in a moment of transition in the history of this phrase and helped it on its way to subsequent development.”
[8] Cf. for a different opinion, Everett H. Harrison, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/III. The Need for Salvation: The Plight of Mankind (1:18-3:20)/B. Principles of Judgment (2:1-16), Book Version: 4.0.2: “This ought not to be confused with the promise of the law written in the heart as depicted in Jeremiah 31:33, because if that were the case, as Nygren observes, Gentiles "would indeed have the law, and that in a more intimate way than the Jew had it" (in loc.).”
[9] Don Garlington, “A ‘New Perspective’ Reading of Central Texts in Romans 1-4,” Prepared for Evangelical Theological Society: 15 August 2006. Cited 20 02 2007. Online: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Rom1-4.pdf.12.
[10] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 39.
[11] See Mark 13:32 where Jesus claims his own knowledge as less than his Father’s prior to his death and resurrection. Also see Mark 6:5, where it is claimed that under the circumstances, “he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” This should not be explained away entirely either by the other two gospel accounts.
[12] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 14.
[13] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, pp. 418-419.
[14] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126., cf. also N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, p. 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
[15] John Reumann, “Righteousness (NT),” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6. ed. David Noel Freedman, 1st ed. (New York, New York: Doubleday, 1992), 764-765.
[16] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” p. 65.
[17] John Reumann, p. 765: ‘One can view the ‘righteousness of God’ (8 of the 9 or 10 occurrences of dikaiosynē theou in Paul occur in Romans), especially the four examples in 3:21-26, as the basis for the entire letter, or at least 1:16-5:21.’
[18] Ibid., 765
[19] Roy Jeal
[20] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 48, claims that Paul’s ambiguity as to whether faith or faithfulness is an intentional feature of Paul’s letter.
[21] Ibid., 49.
COVENANT PART 2 (Paul’s Understanding of the Role of Law as Reflected in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29)
I chose to examine Paul’s understanding of the Law as he explains it in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29. This paper is a natural continuation of the work I previously completed entitled Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. As such I will forego much of the ‘introductory issues’ pertaining to Romans itself. This paper, as well as being a continuation of the previous one, does contain some valuable overlap. I submit also that the passages in Romans 2 that will be examined here contain some notable, albeit not infrequently overlooked information about Paul’s understanding of the Law.[1] N.T. Wright, in his article The Law in Romans 2, claims that “Romans 2, for so long the Achilles heel of schemes on Paul and the Law, may make a vital contribution to some eventual solutions, both to the theological questions which surround all of Paul’s writings and, of course, to the exegesis of Romans itself.”[2]
It is in verse 9 actually that ‘the Jew’ is mentioned for the first time. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[3] It is verses 12-16 though where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in Romans making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law that are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.
Verses 14 and 15 are important for contained therein is the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law: even the Gentiles who do not have the Law are able to do what the Law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain an obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but even more than that, it is reference to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth.
Verses 17-24 speak of the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul addresses a Jewish claim that they can ‘know [God’s] will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the Law (v.18)” and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (19-20).” He refutes this, emphasising his point through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[4]
Verses 25-29 speak specifically about circumcision and Law. Two groups of people are being addressed but exactly to whom the passage is referring is not entirely clear. The identity of the first person referred to here is clearer than that of the second. The first is a Jew who does not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). It is the second person whose identification is somewhat ambiguous. Is the contrasting person a Christian (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) or a non-believing Gentile?
N.T. Wright puts forth a lengthy argument in favour of the idea that the Gentile is indeed a Christian. He concludes, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[5]
Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[6] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, “what Paul is pointing to is simply the fact that the claim of the Jews to any exclusiveness on the basis of the content of their Law must reckon with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are also practiced by other people. Since that is the case, it is what one does, not what one has that is important.”[7]
Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement here are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating, “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (v.15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. 2:13).”[8] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16).
Pertaining to the spiritual circumcision, “there was plenty of background for Paul’s appeal for circumcision of the heart (e.g., Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25, 26).”[9] Paul points out that circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law and he has already argued that the Jews are not obeying the Law and thus “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (v.24; cf. Isaiah 52:5).” What of the uncircumcised Gentile who obeys the Law? Paul says that he “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (v. 27).” The Gentiles are grafted into the vine; therefore, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment. This has been Paul’s critique consistently throughout the chapter.”[10]
The role of Law is to reveal how we are guilty of sin (cf. 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (2:2; cf. 3:19-20). It is the ‘doing’ rather than the receiving of the Law that reveals that one is justified (2:13-14,18, 25-26). Both Jew and Gentile, the latter not being recipients of the Law, are equally able to ‘do’ or ‘not do’ the Law (cf. 2:3, 14-15, 17-14, 25-26, 3:19-31). Further, if indeed it were possible for him not to transgress the Law (cf. 3:20), the Gentile would stand in judgement of the Jew who did receive it (contrast 2:1-3). At the conclusion of the second chapter of Romans, it is clear that the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[11]
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), republished with English translations of German essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001): 131
[2] Ibid.
[3] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 126. Cf. also NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
[4] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 37.
[5] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 136.
[6] Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans. Interpretation: (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985), 51.
[7] Ibid.
[8] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas,
It is in verse 9 actually that ‘the Jew’ is mentioned for the first time. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[3] It is verses 12-16 though where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in Romans making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law that are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.
Verses 14 and 15 are important for contained therein is the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law: even the Gentiles who do not have the Law are able to do what the Law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain an obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but even more than that, it is reference to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth.
Verses 17-24 speak of the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul addresses a Jewish claim that they can ‘know [God’s] will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the Law (v.18)” and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (19-20).” He refutes this, emphasising his point through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[4]
Verses 25-29 speak specifically about circumcision and Law. Two groups of people are being addressed but exactly to whom the passage is referring is not entirely clear. The identity of the first person referred to here is clearer than that of the second. The first is a Jew who does not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). It is the second person whose identification is somewhat ambiguous. Is the contrasting person a Christian (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) or a non-believing Gentile?
N.T. Wright puts forth a lengthy argument in favour of the idea that the Gentile is indeed a Christian. He concludes, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[5]
Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[6] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, “what Paul is pointing to is simply the fact that the claim of the Jews to any exclusiveness on the basis of the content of their Law must reckon with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are also practiced by other people. Since that is the case, it is what one does, not what one has that is important.”[7]
Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement here are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating, “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (v.15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. 2:13).”[8] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16).
Pertaining to the spiritual circumcision, “there was plenty of background for Paul’s appeal for circumcision of the heart (e.g., Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25, 26).”[9] Paul points out that circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law and he has already argued that the Jews are not obeying the Law and thus “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (v.24; cf. Isaiah 52:5).” What of the uncircumcised Gentile who obeys the Law? Paul says that he “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (v. 27).” The Gentiles are grafted into the vine; therefore, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment. This has been Paul’s critique consistently throughout the chapter.”[10]
The role of Law is to reveal how we are guilty of sin (cf. 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (2:2; cf. 3:19-20). It is the ‘doing’ rather than the receiving of the Law that reveals that one is justified (2:13-14,18, 25-26). Both Jew and Gentile, the latter not being recipients of the Law, are equally able to ‘do’ or ‘not do’ the Law (cf. 2:3, 14-15, 17-14, 25-26, 3:19-31). Further, if indeed it were possible for him not to transgress the Law (cf. 3:20), the Gentile would stand in judgement of the Jew who did receive it (contrast 2:1-3). At the conclusion of the second chapter of Romans, it is clear that the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[11]
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), republished with English translations of German essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001): 131
[2] Ibid.
[3] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 126. Cf. also NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
[4] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 37.
[5] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 136.
[6] Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans. Interpretation: (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985), 51.
[7] Ibid.
[8] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas,
COVENANT PART 1 (Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16)
“Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece”[1] – N.T. Wright.
Introduction
Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid to late 50s[2] and is addressed to Gentiles.[3] In the mid to late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD).
Pertaining to the theme of Romans and not wanting to devote an excessive amount of space to introductory issues, I have to acknowledge that “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4] In contrast to this difficulty, “the easiest thing to determine about Romans is its basic shape. Its four sections emerge clearly: chaps. 1-4, 5-8, 9-11, and 12-16.”[5] Chapters 1-4 can be broken down into 1:18-3:20 and 3:21-4:25,[6] and 1:18-3:20 can further be divided into 1:18-32; 2:1-16, 17-29; 3:9-20, 21-26 and 3:27-4:25.[7] For the purposes of this paper, I will examine Paul’s understanding of the human condition as it is related in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16.
Romans 1: 18-32
The section begins with Paul acknowledging the human condition of those who “by their wickedness [asebeia] suppress the truth (1:18).” This is significant. Their condition is stated as receiving the wrath of God for good reason: Paul points out that the truth they are suppressing must be plain to them for God, himself, has shown it to them (1:19) through the evidence of His creation. Ever since the beginning of the world, God’s power and nature have been understood (v.20).
Though this truth was revealed to them, they neither honoured God nor gave Him the thanks He deserves; rather ‘claiming to be wise they became fools’ in that they abandoned the glory of the creator so that they might worship the image of the created (cf. Psalm 106:20). It is because they, without any good excuse, disregarded the truth and followed this lie that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (v.24).” The human condition here is, by way of denying the obvious truth, one of rebellion against God.
Much could be written on the lists included in vv.26-31. What is significant for our purposes here is that God gave the truth-deniers up to their “unnatural” (para physin) passions (v.26): they had intercourse with people of the same gender and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (v.27).”[8] Further, “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind (v.28):” they were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, God-hatred, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventing evil, rebellion against parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness (vv.29-31; cf. 2 Tim 3:2,3). This is the general human condition of the truth-deniers while acknowledging that “sinful man is capable of committing all of them [these sins], but not every individual is necessarily guilty of every one.”[9] These truth-deniers, Paul asserts, are aware that they deserve to die for participating in these things and that they not only partake of these actions but also encourage others to indulge in the very same acts. The result, then, of disregarding the truth about the divine nature and eternal power of God is to be given over to these unnatural desires and to act upon a debased mind; this is the human condition and for this they deserve to die.
Romans 2:1-16
This next section is interesting. Paul claims in verse one that no one, whoever you are, has any excuse (cf. 1:18) to condemn others, for you, whoever you are, are doing the very same things. You, whoever you are, are committing the evil acts that come from worshiping the created over the creator and are worthy of the judgement of God.
It is worth examining here the ‘whoever you are’ from verse one. Until this point in the letter Paul has been using the third person plural pronoun (‘they’ in English) to refer to people whose actions he is discussing. He here describes people using the second person singular, ‘you’. This is not to say that he is referring to the recipients of the letter, as that would necessitate a plural form of the word. Rather, “Paul utilizes here…a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or an opponent.”[10] So who is this ‘you’ that is being addressed? It is probably not a specific person but rather an imaginary one who personifies many arguments that Paul may have previously refuted on this topic. This ‘you’ may be representative of a condemning Jew to contrast with the wicked Gentile ‘they,’[11] in which case it would say here that the Jew will judged as well as the Gentile. By ‘you’ however, Paul may have also meant the Gentiles who deplore the aforementioned evil actions.[12] Either way, this is a significant change of language and it espouses judgement upon the judge and condemnation upon the self-righteous moralizer.[13] You, whoever you are, are not immune to this human condition of being guilty of rebellion against God.
Verses 3-5, through a series of rhetorical questions, point to the hypocrisy of claiming one thing and yet doing another: “Do you imagine…that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (2:3-5).” Even in this judgement, grace can be seen. For while these actions by the truth-deniers lead to death, God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance for God “will repay according to each one’s deeds (v.6).” The human condition of the truth-deniers is that they are more than creation worshipers (cf. v.25); they are self-seeking (cf. Gen 3:6) in their wrath-provoking disobedience of truth (cf. 1:18) and therefore every bit as guilty as they who were mentioned in Chapter One.
Verse 9 mentions ‘the Jew’ explicitly for the first time in Romans. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] They will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged. This is the human condition: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1).”
It is not those who hear the law – for they may be truth-deniers or rejecters – but it is those who obey the law that are justified (v.13). Verses 14-15 are an expression of a central part of Paul’s expressed concept of the human condition. Even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but it is also an acknowledgement of the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth. They are now blessed as even the Gentiles ‘have the law written on their hearts.’
All of this then is the human condition according to Paul in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. Those who deny the abundant evidence of God’s eternal power and divine nature (1:19-20) are rightly exposed to the wrath of God (1:18, 2:8), which results in being given over to their unnatural desires to act upon a debased mind. As a consequence of this sin, this rebellion, that they commit, they are condemned and deserve to die. Neither moralizing nor the Torah can save anyone. Christ, however, has ushered in the new covenant (cf. Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hebrews 8, 9, 12:24); therefore, repentance (2:4), blessing (Gen 12:3), justification (2:13), and righteousness (2:13) await those ‘doers of the law’ which is now written on their hearts. In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 395.
[2] Ibid., 396.
[3] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), xiv.
[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 24.
[5] NT Wright, p. 397.
[6] Marion L. Soards, The Apostle Paul: an Introduction to his Writings and Teachings. (New York / Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987), 104
[7] Douglas J. Moo, p. 33.
[8] “We are not told how this giving over was implemented, but most likely we are to think of it in negative terms—i.e., that God simply took his hands off and let wilful rejection of himself produce its ugly results in human life.” - Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/III. The Need for Salvation: The Plight of Mankind (1:18-3:20)/A. In the Pagan World (1:18-32), Book Version: 4.0.2
[9] Ibid.
[10] Douglas J. Moo, p. 125. John Stott, p. 81, agrees with this possibility. While still acknowledging this possibility, NT Wright, p. 439, suggests a different opinion. He asserts that Paul here may be doing nothing more than taking a common ground between himself and his audience for granted here.
[11] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126.
[12] John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 80.
[13] “Perhaps the underlying thought is that, by standing in judgement of others while being guilty yourself of similar offences (in a way yet to be explored), they have been similarly deceitful, holding up their own behaviour as an example when it should in fact have been condemned.” NT Wright, pp. 438-439
[14] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126., cf. also NT Wright, p. 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
Introduction
Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid to late 50s[2] and is addressed to Gentiles.[3] In the mid to late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD).
Pertaining to the theme of Romans and not wanting to devote an excessive amount of space to introductory issues, I have to acknowledge that “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4] In contrast to this difficulty, “the easiest thing to determine about Romans is its basic shape. Its four sections emerge clearly: chaps. 1-4, 5-8, 9-11, and 12-16.”[5] Chapters 1-4 can be broken down into 1:18-3:20 and 3:21-4:25,[6] and 1:18-3:20 can further be divided into 1:18-32; 2:1-16, 17-29; 3:9-20, 21-26 and 3:27-4:25.[7] For the purposes of this paper, I will examine Paul’s understanding of the human condition as it is related in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16.
Romans 1: 18-32
The section begins with Paul acknowledging the human condition of those who “by their wickedness [asebeia] suppress the truth (1:18).” This is significant. Their condition is stated as receiving the wrath of God for good reason: Paul points out that the truth they are suppressing must be plain to them for God, himself, has shown it to them (1:19) through the evidence of His creation. Ever since the beginning of the world, God’s power and nature have been understood (v.20).
Though this truth was revealed to them, they neither honoured God nor gave Him the thanks He deserves; rather ‘claiming to be wise they became fools’ in that they abandoned the glory of the creator so that they might worship the image of the created (cf. Psalm 106:20). It is because they, without any good excuse, disregarded the truth and followed this lie that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (v.24).” The human condition here is, by way of denying the obvious truth, one of rebellion against God.
Much could be written on the lists included in vv.26-31. What is significant for our purposes here is that God gave the truth-deniers up to their “unnatural” (para physin) passions (v.26): they had intercourse with people of the same gender and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (v.27).”[8] Further, “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind (v.28):” they were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, God-hatred, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventing evil, rebellion against parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness (vv.29-31; cf. 2 Tim 3:2,3). This is the general human condition of the truth-deniers while acknowledging that “sinful man is capable of committing all of them [these sins], but not every individual is necessarily guilty of every one.”[9] These truth-deniers, Paul asserts, are aware that they deserve to die for participating in these things and that they not only partake of these actions but also encourage others to indulge in the very same acts. The result, then, of disregarding the truth about the divine nature and eternal power of God is to be given over to these unnatural desires and to act upon a debased mind; this is the human condition and for this they deserve to die.
Romans 2:1-16
This next section is interesting. Paul claims in verse one that no one, whoever you are, has any excuse (cf. 1:18) to condemn others, for you, whoever you are, are doing the very same things. You, whoever you are, are committing the evil acts that come from worshiping the created over the creator and are worthy of the judgement of God.
It is worth examining here the ‘whoever you are’ from verse one. Until this point in the letter Paul has been using the third person plural pronoun (‘they’ in English) to refer to people whose actions he is discussing. He here describes people using the second person singular, ‘you’. This is not to say that he is referring to the recipients of the letter, as that would necessitate a plural form of the word. Rather, “Paul utilizes here…a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or an opponent.”[10] So who is this ‘you’ that is being addressed? It is probably not a specific person but rather an imaginary one who personifies many arguments that Paul may have previously refuted on this topic. This ‘you’ may be representative of a condemning Jew to contrast with the wicked Gentile ‘they,’[11] in which case it would say here that the Jew will judged as well as the Gentile. By ‘you’ however, Paul may have also meant the Gentiles who deplore the aforementioned evil actions.[12] Either way, this is a significant change of language and it espouses judgement upon the judge and condemnation upon the self-righteous moralizer.[13] You, whoever you are, are not immune to this human condition of being guilty of rebellion against God.
Verses 3-5, through a series of rhetorical questions, point to the hypocrisy of claiming one thing and yet doing another: “Do you imagine…that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (2:3-5).” Even in this judgement, grace can be seen. For while these actions by the truth-deniers lead to death, God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance for God “will repay according to each one’s deeds (v.6).” The human condition of the truth-deniers is that they are more than creation worshipers (cf. v.25); they are self-seeking (cf. Gen 3:6) in their wrath-provoking disobedience of truth (cf. 1:18) and therefore every bit as guilty as they who were mentioned in Chapter One.
Verse 9 mentions ‘the Jew’ explicitly for the first time in Romans. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] They will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged. This is the human condition: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1).”
It is not those who hear the law – for they may be truth-deniers or rejecters – but it is those who obey the law that are justified (v.13). Verses 14-15 are an expression of a central part of Paul’s expressed concept of the human condition. Even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but it is also an acknowledgement of the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth. They are now blessed as even the Gentiles ‘have the law written on their hearts.’
All of this then is the human condition according to Paul in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. Those who deny the abundant evidence of God’s eternal power and divine nature (1:19-20) are rightly exposed to the wrath of God (1:18, 2:8), which results in being given over to their unnatural desires to act upon a debased mind. As a consequence of this sin, this rebellion, that they commit, they are condemned and deserve to die. Neither moralizing nor the Torah can save anyone. Christ, however, has ushered in the new covenant (cf. Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hebrews 8, 9, 12:24); therefore, repentance (2:4), blessing (Gen 12:3), justification (2:13), and righteousness (2:13) await those ‘doers of the law’ which is now written on their hearts. In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
http://www.sheepspeak.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 395.
[2] Ibid., 396.
[3] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), xiv.
[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 24.
[5] NT Wright, p. 397.
[6] Marion L. Soards, The Apostle Paul: an Introduction to his Writings and Teachings. (New York / Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987), 104
[7] Douglas J. Moo, p. 33.
[8] “We are not told how this giving over was implemented, but most likely we are to think of it in negative terms—i.e., that God simply took his hands off and let wilful rejection of himself produce its ugly results in human life.” - Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/III. The Need for Salvation: The Plight of Mankind (1:18-3:20)/A. In the Pagan World (1:18-32), Book Version: 4.0.2
[9] Ibid.
[10] Douglas J. Moo, p. 125. John Stott, p. 81, agrees with this possibility. While still acknowledging this possibility, NT Wright, p. 439, suggests a different opinion. He asserts that Paul here may be doing nothing more than taking a common ground between himself and his audience for granted here.
[11] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126.
[12] John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 80.
[13] “Perhaps the underlying thought is that, by standing in judgement of others while being guilty yourself of similar offences (in a way yet to be explored), they have been similarly deceitful, holding up their own behaviour as an example when it should in fact have been condemned.” NT Wright, pp. 438-439
[14] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126., cf. also NT Wright, p. 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Wright on Covenant
The point of the covenant with Israel, in the whole of Scripture, is that it is the means by which God is rescuing the children of Adam and so restoring the world
1 Timothy 6:6 and The Resurrection Band
1 Timothy 6:6-7, “godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.” A little earlier than the televangelist scandals of the 1980s, I can remember as a teenager being really impressed with a Christian musical group called The Resurrection Band. I don’t know if anyone here has ever heard of them. They are a Chicago band. They were the first hard rock Christian band to ever find popular success. One of their songs reached #6 on the American charts; they had sold out concerts; they had good record sales; even Canadian kids like me (who in those days really didn’t care for Christian music at all) were listening to them. Do you know what they did with the profits they made? They - like the early church - donated 100% of the profits they made to their church community (Acts 2:44-45).[13] They didn’t donate a 10% tithe. They didn’t donate a 50% bonus tithe. They donated 100% back and spent their days working in ministry in their church community. These people could have chosen to be rich but instead they chose to follow God. 1 Timothy 6:6-7, “godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.”
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2011/08/1-timothy-63-10-godliness-with.html
What about us?
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2011/08/1-timothy-63-10-godliness-with.html
What about us?
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The children are the future...
vintage armybarmy (2003) re-run today at http://www.armybarmy.com/
July 31, 2003.
Greetings in Jesus’ name, friends.
Since I’m on about SALVATIONIST, how about the article by Colonel Brindley Boon on Commissioner George Scott Railton (one of my heroes- see the recent best books blogs)! He was promoted to Glory 90 years ago this month.
Boon brings to light some interesting information about Railton’s family. Here it is:
On 17 January 1884 George Scott Railton (GSR) left the Booth household - the only real home he had ever known - to marry Timbrel Sergeant Deborah Parkyn of Torquay Corps. The ceremony was conducted by General Booth at Exeter Hall in the Strand. It was a public occasion with 'tickets, a packed house, hundreds of tambourines, many concertinas, a full brass band and a large noisy drum'.
The bride was the daughter of a free church minister who was a man of property. When the girl became a Salvationist her father was greatly displeased. She was certainly socially a cut above the average Army lass of the time and her continuing activity could bring disgrace upon the respectable family. Eventually he relented to the extent of agreeing to his daughter marrying Railton so long as he severed all connection with the Salvationists. This was out of the question and the couple, so much in love, became 'continual comrades in the war'.
The travelling commissioner's many journeys took him frequently away from Mrs Railton and their three children, David, Nathaniel and Esther. The father had high hopes of the boys following him into Army officership and, like many a leader since, was disappointed when events did not work out that way. It has been suggested that the boys never really forgave the Army hierarchy for taking him away so often and not allowing them to get to know him. Most probably Railton, the Army's St Francis, would not have wished a life other than the one he so much relished.
Both sons went to Oxford University - with money from a trust set up by Deborah's father and from which Railton and the Army were excluded – and became Church of England padres in the First World War.
Light bulb! Here was GSR marrying a soldier daughter of a free-church minister. What’s the problem? Father-in-law did not approve. What’s wrong with that? We lost GSR’s family heritage for the Army.
Is that too extreme? Father-in-law established a trust fund to educate his grandchildren. GSR and the Army were excluded from it.
They went and got educated out of the Army.
“Tell it not in Gath!” you say? Their grandparents seemed to have poisoned them to the Flag. And we lost them.
Can you imagine what GSR’s children might have done as zealous, passionate, covenanted, apostolic, prophetic end-time warriors in the Ranks? Can you imagine THREE Railtons roaming the earth, starting wars, imitating Christ, winning souls, instigating revolutions, dreaming dreams, dying with their boots on? We didn't see it.
July 31, 2003.
Greetings in Jesus’ name, friends.
Since I’m on about SALVATIONIST, how about the article by Colonel Brindley Boon on Commissioner George Scott Railton (one of my heroes- see the recent best books blogs)! He was promoted to Glory 90 years ago this month.
Boon brings to light some interesting information about Railton’s family. Here it is:
On 17 January 1884 George Scott Railton (GSR) left the Booth household - the only real home he had ever known - to marry Timbrel Sergeant Deborah Parkyn of Torquay Corps. The ceremony was conducted by General Booth at Exeter Hall in the Strand. It was a public occasion with 'tickets, a packed house, hundreds of tambourines, many concertinas, a full brass band and a large noisy drum'.
The bride was the daughter of a free church minister who was a man of property. When the girl became a Salvationist her father was greatly displeased. She was certainly socially a cut above the average Army lass of the time and her continuing activity could bring disgrace upon the respectable family. Eventually he relented to the extent of agreeing to his daughter marrying Railton so long as he severed all connection with the Salvationists. This was out of the question and the couple, so much in love, became 'continual comrades in the war'.
The travelling commissioner's many journeys took him frequently away from Mrs Railton and their three children, David, Nathaniel and Esther. The father had high hopes of the boys following him into Army officership and, like many a leader since, was disappointed when events did not work out that way. It has been suggested that the boys never really forgave the Army hierarchy for taking him away so often and not allowing them to get to know him. Most probably Railton, the Army's St Francis, would not have wished a life other than the one he so much relished.
Both sons went to Oxford University - with money from a trust set up by Deborah's father and from which Railton and the Army were excluded – and became Church of England padres in the First World War.
Light bulb! Here was GSR marrying a soldier daughter of a free-church minister. What’s the problem? Father-in-law did not approve. What’s wrong with that? We lost GSR’s family heritage for the Army.
Is that too extreme? Father-in-law established a trust fund to educate his grandchildren. GSR and the Army were excluded from it.
They went and got educated out of the Army.
“Tell it not in Gath!” you say? Their grandparents seemed to have poisoned them to the Flag. And we lost them.
Can you imagine what GSR’s children might have done as zealous, passionate, covenanted, apostolic, prophetic end-time warriors in the Ranks? Can you imagine THREE Railtons roaming the earth, starting wars, imitating Christ, winning souls, instigating revolutions, dreaming dreams, dying with their boots on? We didn't see it.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Re:Forgiveness (1)
Think of the worst prank that you have ever played on a younger sibling or the worst thing that an older brother has done to you and I imagine that this is probably worse. Genesis Chapter 37:12ff records how Joseph’s nine older brothers treat him. They grab their 17 year-old younger brother and throw him into an empty well and then they sit down to have lunch all the while, it seems, discussing whether or not they are going to kill him or what else they are going to do with him. (Imagine what it would be like in the well, hearing that conversation!) Providentially some slave traders come along; so instead of killing Joseph, his brothers decide to sell him into slavery. This is the last time they see Joseph for many, many years. Joseph then spends quite a few years as a slave before he is sent to prison for a crime he doesn’t commit. All of this directly follows his brothers’ actions of kidnapping, confining, and selling him into slavery. They have a few things for which they need forgiveness and they are scared of their brother, Joseph. And they are more than a little bit afraid because Joseph is now – in our story today – the second most powerful man in all of Egypt.
Joseph has already shown too that he is not necessarily above games and a measure of retribution. Remember when Joseph and his brothers met the first time after all these years: Joseph accuses them of being spies; he frames them for theft and then wrongfully imprisons Simeon, one of his brothers. Then, upon their next meeting much later, Joseph threatens to do the same thing to one of his other brothers. The brothers were afraid of Joseph and they are particularly afraid of Joseph right now because their dad has just died. Remember that Joseph was dad’s favourite so the brothers figure that maybe Joseph is just waiting until dad dies to finally really get back at them once and for all for the horrible things they did to him as a teenager. Dad, they figure, was their protection from their brother, preventing him from exacting his long overdue revenge on them and now dad is dead so they fear that it is payback time (cf. Genesis 27:41-45).[2]
Genesis 50:15 records that “When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, ‘What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did him.’”... Have you ever done something wrong and just sat there worrying about the consequences? This is what it is like for the brothers. Have you ever had that feeling?
It is the same feeling, when you are driving along, look in the rear-view mirror, see the red and blue flashing lights come on behind you; you look down at your speedometer; you pull over to the side of the road, roll down your window and wait for the inevitable, “Driver’s licence and registration please. Do you know how fast you were going?” It is that same feeling in the pit of your stomach. You are guilty and there is nothing you can do; you are entirely at the mercy of the nice man or the nice woman in blue. For Joseph’s brothers it may even have been more intensified than this too because with the protection of their father out of they way, they know that Joseph has the power of life and death over them. He can -with impunity- have them all killed, if he so desires.[3]
It is in this setting that they contact Joseph and say (and they might even be lying)[4] that, Verse 17, their dad said before he died that, “This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly. Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.”
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
The Apostle Paul's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
…it was just like the children’s book says, “a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.”
In Acts, today, up to and including Chapter 23, you will notice that Paul has been having a little bit of a run like that himself.
In Chapter 16, as we read about last week Paul winds up in detention in Philippi and again in Thessalonica after being attacked by a mob there and again in Berea all in Chapter 17. By Chapter 19 Paul is in the centre of a riot in Ephesus and by Chapter 21 he is now in Jerusalem again and arrested again after being attacked again by still more mobs. Paul really seems to be having “a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad” time of it.
Now Paul is arrested when he is spreading the good news. But it is not the gospel that gets him in trouble with the secular authorities really. They are just trying to keep the peace and save his life. The gospel is getting Paul in trouble with some of the religious leaders.[2] It is they who God delivers Paul from, through the Romans.
Paul is saved[3] but the Romans really have no idea why the religious people want to kill him;[4] so, they keep him under a full, armed guard. He is in the custody of the Superpower of his day[5] and because they do have a vested interest in keeping the peace and because he is a Roman citizen himself, they REALLY want to find out exactly what he has been accused of here; so, they order the Sanhedrin to convene to try to shed some light on the situation.
Now in our text today then, Chapter 23, it opens with this fact-finding hearing with the Sanhedrin and the Sanhedrin (you’ll note from your ‘Sermon Helps’ in the bulletin) is a council of the chief priests of Judaism. They are the Jewish authority.
So with the occupying Roman authorities looking on as official observers, the trial begins. Paul begins. He looks straight at the Sanhedrin (23 vs. 1) in his opening statement and says, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”[6] … and then the High Priest (vs. 2) orders someone to punch him in the mouth. What?
The Romans are asking, ‘what’, too, I’m sure; when I first read this I was asking, ‘what’? So I turned to my reference books and poured through Acts to see if I could find out what Paul said that was so offensive. Yeah… No luck. All I can guess is that they perceived Paul as misrepresenting God in some way here – but that is just a guess – however, we do know that whatever it is, it obviously offends Ananias,[7] the High Priest, so much that he gets someone to punch Paul in the mouth.
Now Paul, as we already said, is apparently not really having a particularly good day and so he does not maintain his usual composure under pressure.[8] He lashes out at the High Priest – this is pretty bold – he says, verse 3, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” and look at what happens after this in verses 4 and 5: Those who are standing near Paul said, “You dare to insult God’s high priest?” Paul replies, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’ (Exodus 22:28; cf. also Hebrews 13:16; Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1)
So… now… this is interesting: Paul says that he doesn’t realize that he is the High Priest...
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/acts-23-1-11-punch-in-mouth-or-terrible.html
In Acts, today, up to and including Chapter 23, you will notice that Paul has been having a little bit of a run like that himself.
In Chapter 16, as we read about last week Paul winds up in detention in Philippi and again in Thessalonica after being attacked by a mob there and again in Berea all in Chapter 17. By Chapter 19 Paul is in the centre of a riot in Ephesus and by Chapter 21 he is now in Jerusalem again and arrested again after being attacked again by still more mobs. Paul really seems to be having “a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad” time of it.
Now Paul is arrested when he is spreading the good news. But it is not the gospel that gets him in trouble with the secular authorities really. They are just trying to keep the peace and save his life. The gospel is getting Paul in trouble with some of the religious leaders.[2] It is they who God delivers Paul from, through the Romans.
Paul is saved[3] but the Romans really have no idea why the religious people want to kill him;[4] so, they keep him under a full, armed guard. He is in the custody of the Superpower of his day[5] and because they do have a vested interest in keeping the peace and because he is a Roman citizen himself, they REALLY want to find out exactly what he has been accused of here; so, they order the Sanhedrin to convene to try to shed some light on the situation.
Now in our text today then, Chapter 23, it opens with this fact-finding hearing with the Sanhedrin and the Sanhedrin (you’ll note from your ‘Sermon Helps’ in the bulletin) is a council of the chief priests of Judaism. They are the Jewish authority.
So with the occupying Roman authorities looking on as official observers, the trial begins. Paul begins. He looks straight at the Sanhedrin (23 vs. 1) in his opening statement and says, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”[6] … and then the High Priest (vs. 2) orders someone to punch him in the mouth. What?
The Romans are asking, ‘what’, too, I’m sure; when I first read this I was asking, ‘what’? So I turned to my reference books and poured through Acts to see if I could find out what Paul said that was so offensive. Yeah… No luck. All I can guess is that they perceived Paul as misrepresenting God in some way here – but that is just a guess – however, we do know that whatever it is, it obviously offends Ananias,[7] the High Priest, so much that he gets someone to punch Paul in the mouth.
Now Paul, as we already said, is apparently not really having a particularly good day and so he does not maintain his usual composure under pressure.[8] He lashes out at the High Priest – this is pretty bold – he says, verse 3, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” and look at what happens after this in verses 4 and 5: Those who are standing near Paul said, “You dare to insult God’s high priest?” Paul replies, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’ (Exodus 22:28; cf. also Hebrews 13:16; Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1)
So… now… this is interesting: Paul says that he doesn’t realize that he is the High Priest...
read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/acts-23-1-11-punch-in-mouth-or-terrible.html
Monday, August 01, 2011
Army Barmy on leadership and people going to hell....
http://armybarmy.com/blog.html (August 01/11)
Interesting stuff:
Leadership should have a local base.
There are exceptions to this statement, but generally speaking, leadership should have a local base.
So, how does that look practically? The DS oversees a corps. The DC oversees a corps. The cabinet members all oversee corps. The TC and the General all oversee corps.
It gives credibility. It permits you to lead by example. It gives a dose of reality. It helps you to keep your finger on the pulse of the culture. It keeps you closer to people.
Now, I am not suggesting that the general run the corps on her own. I am being realistic, too. Give her a couple of majors as associates or something, but leave her in charge.
----
Remember the poor.
----
How about this, from Reuters News Agency (Zelie Pollon, July 17, 2003)?
A New Mexico family is suing their local Catholic church over a funeral Mass in which they claim a priest said their relative was only a middling Catholic and going straight to hell.
Court papers filed last month say that Rev. Scott Mansfield said at Martinez's funeral last year that the deceased was "living in sin," "lukewarm in his faith" and that "the Lord vomited people like Ben out of his mouth to hell."
Wow. What do you do about that? I’m pleasantly surprised that someone had the guts to speak the truth instead of this devilish nonsense about a ‘better place’. I’m not advocating the tone, of course (vomiting him out of His mouth).
All of you who are preachers had better be careful about what you say this Sunday. The lawyers are loose. And this goes for Canada, especially, where it might be construed to be a hate crime to note that liars and fornicators are going to hell.
Read more: http://armybarmy.com/blog.html
Interesting stuff:
Leadership should have a local base.
There are exceptions to this statement, but generally speaking, leadership should have a local base.
So, how does that look practically? The DS oversees a corps. The DC oversees a corps. The cabinet members all oversee corps. The TC and the General all oversee corps.
It gives credibility. It permits you to lead by example. It gives a dose of reality. It helps you to keep your finger on the pulse of the culture. It keeps you closer to people.
Now, I am not suggesting that the general run the corps on her own. I am being realistic, too. Give her a couple of majors as associates or something, but leave her in charge.
----
Remember the poor.
----
How about this, from Reuters News Agency (Zelie Pollon, July 17, 2003)?
A New Mexico family is suing their local Catholic church over a funeral Mass in which they claim a priest said their relative was only a middling Catholic and going straight to hell.
Court papers filed last month say that Rev. Scott Mansfield said at Martinez's funeral last year that the deceased was "living in sin," "lukewarm in his faith" and that "the Lord vomited people like Ben out of his mouth to hell."
Wow. What do you do about that? I’m pleasantly surprised that someone had the guts to speak the truth instead of this devilish nonsense about a ‘better place’. I’m not advocating the tone, of course (vomiting him out of His mouth).
All of you who are preachers had better be careful about what you say this Sunday. The lawyers are loose. And this goes for Canada, especially, where it might be construed to be a hate crime to note that liars and fornicators are going to hell.
Read more: http://armybarmy.com/blog.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
