The gospel is not simply justification by faith or imputation or substitutionary atonement. Those things are true but that is not the message which Paul defines as “the Gospel.” Rather the Gospel is the announcement that God has brought instituted a new kingdom over the world by raising Jesus from the dead.
“The righteousness of God” in Romans is not a reference to a righteousness “from” God by way of imputation. It is absolutely true that Christ lived a sinless life and (as Paul affirms in Romans) died a death that propitiated the wrath of God. But God’s righteousness is proclaimed by Paul for another reason that Evangelicals need to learn, rather than be kept ignorant about. God’s righteousness is his faithfulness to fulfill his promise to save all who trust in him. This faithfulness is declared in the Gospel message.
Paul’s writing from Romans 1.18 through chapter 2 is not trying to prove that no individual is sinless. Everyone in Paul’s readership already accepted that fact. There are several passages from the OT I could list with two things in common: 1) they prove there is no one without sin and 2) Paul doesn’t bother to quote them. If Paul is trying to prove universal sinfulness (on an individual level), he uses incompetent arguments.
Romans 2 is not dealing with pagans who could theoretically be “saved” if they followed their conscience and never sinned against the light of nature. It is true that Paul interacts with pagans who are unaware of the true God (Acts 14 and 17) but overwhelmingly he and others interact with Gentiles who know about the God of the Hebrews and many who worship him. The issue of pagans who have never heard the truth may be important to us, but Paul is not writing Romans to deal with our felt needs.
Paul is not trying to refute people who believe they can earn their salvation from God by never sinning or by doing enough good works to counterbalance their sins. He says things that are relevant to such a delusion, but he is not dealing with such a group of people.
Paul is not only trying to drive home the importance of how much Christ’s obedience will bring more glory than Adam’s disobedience brought condemnation. He is also concerned to show that the much more numerous trespasses had the greater but better result than the one transgression of Adam.
In Romans 6.1, Paul is not worried about people who think that God’s grace gives them license to sin. Paul talks about salvation by grace many times in his letters without ever worrying about such a misunderstanding.
Furthermore, the problem Paul raises (chapter 3 and chapter 6) is not people who think they can sin because of free forgiveness but people who (mockingly) say they should sin to spread salvation and that they should not be held responsible because God is sovereign (Romans 3 and 9). They do so because Paul is talking about more than simply salvation by grace in this letter. He is pointing out that God not only used Jesus, but he used sin to bring salvation to the world.
Paul does not make all Israel’s history some kind of great object lesson or learning experience about sin. The point of Israel’s history with the Law was not only or primarily to teach people they needed grace. The point (staggeringly) was that God needed to produce a level of sin in order to bring about salvation. Otherwise, propitiation would not have been possible.
It is insufficient to say that Paul’s message teaches that Christ came, lived, died and rose for our salvation. That makes the history of Israel extraneous to the story. In the normal telling, Jesus could have been born in Scandinavia and fallen into a volcano by accident as atonement for our sins. Paul’s letter is also about the role of Israel and Israel’s history. It was all necessary to the plan—the whole history of the world from Adam’s sin and especially Israel’s calling and the giving of the Law.
Paul’s description of the struggle with sin and the Law in Romans 7 is not about an individual wrestling with his own behavior, but a believer who sees how Israel constantly falls under judgment rather than becomes a means of blessing to the nations.
Romans chapter 9 is not an afterthought but the climax of the book (from 9-11). The question of Israel is right there at the center of his concern.
Paul’s letter to the Romans is not mainly concerned with imputation or the mechanics of salvation. Paul is writing about the course of world history, which was going to Hell in a hand basket up till now but is about to change dramatically, though not necessarily recognizably as it changes. The way of the cross will lead God to soon crush Satan under the church’s feet.
While Romans 9 does give us statements that rightly support a “Calvinistic” doctrine (Or at least I happen to think so as a Calvinist), Paul is not talking about people whom he knows are doomed when he speaks of “vessels fitted for destruction” but rather of people who might, and whom he hopes will, repent and be saved. His point is not that God wants to punish them, but that he wanted to use them to provide salvation for the world, including their very selves.
Paul simply does not share the popular view that the future is supposed to get worse and worse until Christ returns. The premise of his argument is that the world has been getting worse but now that Christ has come he will now spread salvation and blessing far beyond the corruption brought into the world through sin.
Good stuff, Mark. A few things I might disagree with though, or at least might have questions about.
“Paul’s writing from Romans 1.18 through chapter 2 is not trying to prove that no individual is sinless.”
I suppose that is not the same as saying “Paul is not trying to prove that all are under God’s condemnation.” Is that what you’re getting at? That Paul is making the direct connection between sin and wrath?
“It is true that Paul interacts with pagans who are unaware of the true God (Acts 14 and 17) but overwhelmingly he and others interact with Gentiles who know about the God of the Hebrews and many who worship him.”
Really good point here. I think it is one of the keys to understanding Romans.
“Paul is not trying to refute people who believe they can earn their salvation from God by never sinning or by doing enough good works to counterbalance their sins. He says things that are relevant to such a delusion, but he is not dealing with such a group of people.”
Nice. I made a similar point in a post yesterday regarding a hymn from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to take a look at that yet, but would appreciate any feedback.
“The point (staggeringly) was that God needed to produce a level of sin in order to bring about salvation.”
I suppose this is going off of Romans 5, that the law came in to increase transgression? Don’t know if I’m quite wrapping my head around the logical necessity of a certain “level of sin” for propitiation. Maybe you could elaborate on this at some point? Or at least point me to where I might dig into it a little more.
“Paul’s description of the struggle with sin and the Law in Romans 7 is not about an individual wrestling with his own behavior”
I think I agree.
“but a believer who sees how Israel constantly falls under judgment rather than becomes a means of blessing to the nations.”
I’m not sure I am seeing this in Romans 7. While I can see that in a sense Romans is about the history of the world, and Israel’s role in it, I don’t know if I’m ready to say that that is the lens through which we should view the whole book. We get throughout the book this tension between Jew and Gentile roles in plan of salvation. In Romans 1 and 2, we get universal condemnation of Gentiles and Jews, and from there it seems that Paul shifts back and forth in his focus in a sort of comparison/contrast. In Romans 7, I believe he’s shifted back to the Gentile point of view.
Romans 9-11 I see as just one more step in Paul’s argument to show how both Jew and Gentile, though condemned under different circumstances and of very different histories, both find salvation in Jesus Christ. In these chapters, Paul is certainly speaking OF Israel . . . but I think it’s clear he’s speaking TO Gentiles, as he concludes Chapter 11 with the admonition that if God broke off the natural branches (Jews), he can break YOU (Gentiles) off as well.
Regarding “vessels of wrath” . . . what pduggie said. Not sure if I’m seeing that point.
Mark, just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26? From what I understand there are basically three views on this:
1) “All Israel” means the Church, both ethnic Jew and Gentile
2) There will be a future mass conversion of Jews
3) “All Israel” refers to ethnic Jews who accept Christ
Personally I hold to the third view, building on Romans 9:6. Would be interested to know what you think though.
I think that’s a possibility on an individual level (and more than a possibility looking back on what happened), but Paul is plainly arguing that Israel has not stumbled so as to fall and that the hardening is only partial and that it was done to show mercy to “all.”
Regarding human sinfulness, Paul is proving all are alike under judgment for sin, but this is not the same as simply saying every individual sins. There is more going on. The cup of wrath is full for both Jews and Gentiles.
Regarding the first bullet: You state “Those things are true but that is not …”, etc. Would you accept as true this revision of the statement: “Those things are true but they are merely implicit in the message which Paul defines as ‘the Gospel'”?
For Rom. 1:17 together with the definition of “the righteousness of God” under bullet two imply that
in the gospel is revealed God’s faithfulness to fulfill his promise to save all who trust in him. (*)
But it seems that the place of “those things” (justification by faith, etc.) is precisely to delineate the meaning of statement (*).
I’m not sure, Scott. It is true that the definition of the Gospel can be expanded from the declaration of the death and resurrection of Jesus to a new administration (see Ephesians 3). And I suppose several things could be found to be implicit in that new administration.
Not sure about the Romans 9 thing. The vessels of wrath are dealt with patiently for the good of the vessels of mercy, not for their *own* sake.
Aren’t the vessels of wrath “not children of Abraham” at all?
Good stuff, Mark. A few things I might disagree with though, or at least might have questions about.
“Paul’s writing from Romans 1.18 through chapter 2 is not trying to prove that no individual is sinless.”
I suppose that is not the same as saying “Paul is not trying to prove that all are under God’s condemnation.” Is that what you’re getting at? That Paul is making the direct connection between sin and wrath?
“It is true that Paul interacts with pagans who are unaware of the true God (Acts 14 and 17) but overwhelmingly he and others interact with Gentiles who know about the God of the Hebrews and many who worship him.”
Really good point here. I think it is one of the keys to understanding Romans.
“Paul is not trying to refute people who believe they can earn their salvation from God by never sinning or by doing enough good works to counterbalance their sins. He says things that are relevant to such a delusion, but he is not dealing with such a group of people.”
Nice. I made a similar point in a post yesterday regarding a hymn from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to take a look at that yet, but would appreciate any feedback.
“The point (staggeringly) was that God needed to produce a level of sin in order to bring about salvation.”
I suppose this is going off of Romans 5, that the law came in to increase transgression? Don’t know if I’m quite wrapping my head around the logical necessity of a certain “level of sin” for propitiation. Maybe you could elaborate on this at some point? Or at least point me to where I might dig into it a little more.
“Paul’s description of the struggle with sin and the Law in Romans 7 is not about an individual wrestling with his own behavior”
I think I agree.
“but a believer who sees how Israel constantly falls under judgment rather than becomes a means of blessing to the nations.”
I’m not sure I am seeing this in Romans 7. While I can see that in a sense Romans is about the history of the world, and Israel’s role in it, I don’t know if I’m ready to say that that is the lens through which we should view the whole book. We get throughout the book this tension between Jew and Gentile roles in plan of salvation. In Romans 1 and 2, we get universal condemnation of Gentiles and Jews, and from there it seems that Paul shifts back and forth in his focus in a sort of comparison/contrast. In Romans 7, I believe he’s shifted back to the Gentile point of view.
Romans 9-11 I see as just one more step in Paul’s argument to show how both Jew and Gentile, though condemned under different circumstances and of very different histories, both find salvation in Jesus Christ. In these chapters, Paul is certainly speaking OF Israel . . . but I think it’s clear he’s speaking TO Gentiles, as he concludes Chapter 11 with the admonition that if God broke off the natural branches (Jews), he can break YOU (Gentiles) off as well.
Regarding “vessels of wrath” . . . what pduggie said. Not sure if I’m seeing that point.
Mark, just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26? From what I understand there are basically three views on this:
1) “All Israel” means the Church, both ethnic Jew and Gentile
2) There will be a future mass conversion of Jews
3) “All Israel” refers to ethnic Jews who accept Christ
Personally I hold to the third view, building on Romans 9:6. Would be interested to know what you think though.
I think that’s a possibility on an individual level (and more than a possibility looking back on what happened), but Paul is plainly arguing that Israel has not stumbled so as to fall and that the hardening is only partial and that it was done to show mercy to “all.”
Chris, to your second comment (the short one) I think #2 but I also think that it may have happened shortly before AD 70.
Regarding human sinfulness, Paul is proving all are alike under judgment for sin, but this is not the same as simply saying every individual sins. There is more going on. The cup of wrath is full for both Jews and Gentiles.
Mark,
Regarding the first bullet: You state “Those things are true but that is not …”, etc. Would you accept as true this revision of the statement: “Those things are true but they are merely implicit in the message which Paul defines as ‘the Gospel'”?
For Rom. 1:17 together with the definition of “the righteousness of God” under bullet two imply that
in the gospel is revealed God’s faithfulness to fulfill his promise to save all who trust in him. (*)
But it seems that the place of “those things” (justification by faith, etc.) is precisely to delineate the meaning of statement (*).
Thanks,
Scott
I’m not sure, Scott. It is true that the definition of the Gospel can be expanded from the declaration of the death and resurrection of Jesus to a new administration (see Ephesians 3). And I suppose several things could be found to be implicit in that new administration.