Monthly Archives: March 2011

Future Salvation in Romans

Leave a reply

While it is common to talk about the tenses of salvaiton, the already/not-yet of salvation, in Paul’s letters, it strikes me as odd how obviously Paul tends to view salvation as a future hope in Romans. That is, it strikes me as odd how people seem to ignore this:

  • Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God (Romans 5.9).
  • For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life (Romans 5.10).
  • Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed (Romans 13.11).

Then there is Romans 8.24 which uses “saved” as a past event or present status and yet…

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

So we are “saved” when we have reason to hope for salvation. Kind of like God handing us a check.

Now consider Romans 10.8-13:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Here we have statements that could be interpreted as immediate or future, with one possible exception. But I wonder. When someone calls on the name of the Lord is that only effective if God answers immediately? Romans 5.9, 10 would indicate that one believes in Jesus and is justified and then is promised salvation. One calls on the name of the Lord and then one is saved. In the meantime we experience the frustration Paul describes in Romans 8 but with the confidence and hope that we will see what we were promised.

There are some other uses of “saved” and “salvation” in Israel which work well with the conventional understanding, but I don’t think they contradict the above.

The trees appoint an inquisitor

3 Replies

The trees once went out to appoint an inquisitor over them to find heretics and protect their congregations, and they said to the olive tree, “Reign over us.” But the olive tree said to them, “Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees? Should I make their leaves shake in the winds of fear and find reason to accuse and malign?” And the trees said to the fig tree, “You come and reign over us.” But the fig tree said to them, “Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees? Should I make their leaves shake in the winds of fear and find reason to accuse and malign?” And the trees said to the vine, “You come and reign over us.” But the vine said to them, “Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees? Should I make their leaves shake in the winds of fear and find reason to accuse and malign?” Then all the trees said to the bramble, “You come and reign over us.” And the bramble said to the trees, “If in good faith you are appointing me inquisitor over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” And the bramble also said, “Come and see my instruments by which I will ensure the trees conform to the measure of sound doctrine.”

And he showed them the hammer, ax, and saw.

Doug Wilson on casting off in order to press onward

Leave a reply

This is why our time of confession ought not to be about a list of items, kept or broken. We are in the process of becoming a certain kind of person. Everything we confess is that which interfered with that process. If it did not interfere with it, then there is nothing to confess. But the rules are not floating above our heads, independently autonomous. No, God’s rules are simply a description of what He is like, and what we would like to become like.

The new covenant is all about two things—forgiveness of sin, and the internalization of the law. When you are forgiven, you can deal with sin in your life, and the gospel does what the gospel of grace always does—changes you. When you are forgiven, the law of God is internalized, meaning that you are becoming a walking incarnation of God’s words.

Read the whole post: Becoming a Certain Kind of Person.

RePost from 2003: A Chiasm on Jew, Gentile, and Gospel in Ephesians 1

2 Replies

I was once trying to get a sermon out of Ephesians 1.12-14 and it seemed obvious that I should look for two parallel statements both ending with the phrase, “to the praise of his glory.” Paul here begins talking about two groups of people (“you” and “we”), and he later reveals that these two groups are (from his perspective) we Jews and you Gentiles. The text read in the New American Standard:

to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

After wrestling with this and coming up with nothing. I glanced at the Greek. I realized the first verse had been altered in form. It was not, “to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory” but rather “to the end that we should be to the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ” as the old original American Standard Bible translated correctly.

This meant my quest for two parrallel statements, each ending with “to the praise of his glory” was not going to meet with success. Once properly translated, there was less in common between verse 12 and 14 than I had originally thought.

But then I noticed that we had an AB-BA pattern between the two verses:

to the end that we should be to the praise of his glory,

we who had before hoped in Christ…you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance,

to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory.

This seemed interesting. Paul spoke of the Jews who had hoped in Christ first and then of the Gentiles who had become heirs of the promise. Both seemed like future-oriented ways to describe conversion to Christianity. But it seemed awfully uncertain that Paul was intentionally writing to make that specific point.

But then I noticed something else. Paul had chosen to repeat the same thing in two different ways, describing the Christian message as “the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation.”

I went through two iterations before everything suddenly fell into place. Here’s the structure of Ephesians 1.12-14 with some Greek words transliterated in brackets:

A. to [eis] the end that we should be to [eis] the praise of his glory,

B. we who had before hoped in Christ:

C. in whom you also [en ho kai], having heard

D. the word of the truth,D’. the gospel of your salvation,

C’.in whom you also [en ho kai], having believed,

B’. you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance,

A’. to [eis] the redemption of God’s own possession, to [eis] the praise of his glory.

This pattern is called a “chiasm” by Bible scholars, from the Greek letter chi which looks like our “X” (thus the lame title for this column). It means the passage has an inverse parallelism to teach the careful reader something. In this case, the centrality of the Gospel is literally demonstrated (D.D’) and the future nature of Christian salvation is brought out as we see that we are trusting Christ because we are hoping for a future glory and we have a basis for such hope because we have been made heirs (B.B’).

Furthermore, this analysis brings out more clearly what Paul seems to be saying by speaking of “the Gospel of your salvation.” He will later write that the Gospel-mystery, for which he is an ambassador in chains (6.19, 20) that was especially made known to him by revelation is that “the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (3.6). The Gospel message can be narrowed down to the declaration of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, but Paul sees Christ’s resurrection as the reconciliation both of man to God and man to man:

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit (2.13-22).

Though Paul undoubtedly believes that the Gospel is also good news for Israelites, in Ephesians he is stressing its reference to the Gentiles. By calling it “the Gospel of your salvation” in a context which implies that “we” seems to mean “us Jews” and “you” refers to “you Gentiles,” Paul is already hinting at where he is going in the letter.

See also: What is Paul’s Gospel? All nations are in!

Denying self to pursue real glory

Leave a reply

In Romans 2, Paul writes:

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

How can it not be “self-seeking” to “seek for glory and honor and immortality.” Of course the word for “seek” is not actually used the second time. The NASB’s “those who are selfishly ambitious” is better.

Still, how can it be virtuous to pursue glory, honor, and immortality? How is that not selfish?

In the Bible, being “selfish” as we would call it, is actually self-destructive. One is mastered by parts of oneself that one is unable to restrain or control. Thus, selfishness leads to irrational, idiotic behavior that cannot possibly serve one’s best interests.

So God told Cain:

“Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

To restrain such influences and impulses in order to pursue a specific goal with endurance and integrity is not selfish because “you” master your “self” rather than the other way around. Cain was mastered by “sin” and thus was one of those who “obey unrighteousness” as a slave to sin.

Romans 6 says that we have died so that we can be free from sin and thus offer our body parts as slaves to righteousness:

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Notice that this framework is already being set up in Romans 2 with the contrast between those who pursue immortality and glory and those who submit to unrighteousness.

Desirable to rule over attacking sin

Leave a reply

Mark Horne » Blog Archive » Desirable to make one wise..

Wisdom is first mentioned in the context of grabbing forbidden fruit. Evidence of possessing wisdom is the reason why Joseph is clothed with authority.

If wisdom is about ruling, then perhaps we can see that Cain needed to seek wisdom.

The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

 

By faith and through faithfulness?

Leave a reply

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

via Passage: Romans 3 (ESV Bible Online).

Jews and Gentiles are both justified by faith, yet Paul deliberately uses two different prepositions. Why?

My guess would be that this is a wordplay using two different meanings. “who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faithfulness.”

Again, both Jews and Gentiles are justified through God’s faithfulness. But Paul has been arguing that the Bible promised righteousness for all nations and that the Gospel reveals that God has delivered on this promise.

On the other hand, Israel has been prone to believe that justification is by works rather than by faith.

Thus, Paul here reiterates that it is not by works and that God’s faithfulness has brought about justification for the nations.

 

You can’t give your wife what you don’t own

Leave a reply

When a man and a woman get married, they promise themselves to each other. The assumption is that they are each in a position to actually give the item that they are promising.

I wonder how often that is completely true.

Traditionally, there is a point in a wedding ceremony where the minister asks if there is any other relationship that prevents either person from being legally and morally capable of marrying the other. It is mostly just a formality–though it reminds us that marriage had to be carved out of social chaos.

But while the average couple in a wedding is legally free to marry the other, do they have any real freedom to truly offer themselves to the other?

To a certain extent, of course, you can’t learn how to give yourself in marriage until you get married. You are promising to learn how you need to change to become the perfect spouse (not perfect in a generic way but perfect to the particular person you are marrying) and then to do so. That can’t be all figured out before marriage. You have to grow and adapt.

But such growth and change require freedom. And by freedom I mean slavery.

Slavery to oneself.

Slavery to oneself as an integrated decision maker rather than slavery to the bits of you, whether only immature or downright sinful, that you can’t understand.

If you can’t master yourself you have no capacity to offer yourself to another. So two people take vows who have a hundred invisible spouses already chained to their hands, feet, eyes, and mouths. They are slaves to ambitions, greeds, vices, and assorted addictions.

Marriage has to force real change on a person in order to work. The person has to realize that the vow to belong to another entails a vow to capture and dominate oneself so that one has a person to offer to another.

Related: