Category Archives: Romans

One meaning or several? (Romans)

8 Replies

On my theory, every one of the following statements are saying basically the same thing:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

through the law comes knowledge [as in direct experience] of sin.

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.

It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.

But the standard commentaries assign different topics. So:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!

This is not about God being faithful to bring about the results that Israel had been commissioned to bring about (i.e. salvation to the world).  Rather, it simply means that God will continue to be righteous even when human beings aren’t.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

God’s mercy is shown in the face of human sin.  “Doing evil that good may come” refers only to providing God an opportunity to forgive more.  It has nothing to do with actually using sin (especially Israel’s) to bring about world salvation.

through the law comes knowledge [as in direct experience] of sin.

We learn what sin is by reading the Law.  Why God gave the law and let it fail to do any real good is not answered or posited as a millennia long demonstration that human beings cannot save themselves.

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

We learn right and wrong more plainly from the Law and yet still fail to obey it.  Why then even give the law?  Why increase wrath?  Either simply as a lesson against moralism or else simply to provide more sin to forgive.

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

We are not to think that the parallelism teaches that as the one trespass led to judgment so the many treaspasses culminated in a free gift resulting in justification.  Rather, the judgement was executed on one trespass but the free gift of justification was executed on the guilt of many trespasses.

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

Why did God want to increase the trespass?  Not because it was necessary to produce abounding grace, even though the question in 6.1 would lead one to think that the implication is exactly what hearers found in the statement.  No, he simply did it but then did more by grace.  Romans 6.1 is really asking if we should continue to sin to give God more opportunities to forgive us, not if we should sin to make grace abound further on the world the way that the trespass of rejecting Jesus resulted in abounding grace.

For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.

This is about a personal struggle with sin, not about how the Law in fact historically increased trespasses in Israel.

It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

Again, this is about a personal struggle that happens to sound like the description of Israel’s and the world’s history in Romans 3-5.  Why God wants to aggravate sin in and individual, and how this description if accurate of 1) a regenerate person who cannot gain any victory despite Romans 6 and 8, or 2) an unregenerate person who nevertheless loves God’s law in his mind, is a matter of continuing controversy.

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

This restatement of propitiation (Romans 3.21ff) could have been done at any time in world history and has nothing to do with the laws role in history of aggravating sin and increasing the trespass.

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

The fact that Paul will later write that unbelieving Israel has only be partially hardened should not be permitted to interfere with this passage.  God desired to show his wrath, not in how he set forth Jesus as an propitiation, and then declared that event in his Gospel in all the nations, but in his desire to harden and punish Israel for unbelief.

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

This is narrative does not include the fact that Israel rejected and crucified Jesus but only that they rejected and persecuted the church later and thus jump-started Gentile evangelism sooner than the believing Jewish Church would otherwise have planned.  It has nothing to do with the mocking question in Romans 3 “let us do evil that good may come” and has nothing to do with the “the free gift following many trespasses” in Romans 5.  It is all entirely unrelated.

For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

This is again, not about how Israel’s unbelief led to the propitiation necessary for world salvation, but only about how Gentiles got evangelized in the process of unbelieving Israel driving out believing Jews.

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.

Same as above.

But is this really credible?  Is Paul dealing with a bunch of totally different topics that just happen to sound so similar?

Offering an elegant and simple solution is not absolute proof of veracity.  But I don’t see there is any way one can deny that my solution is much more simple and elegant than the ad hoc explanations that are put forward in the commentaries.

More thoughts on Romans: Wrath and Righteous Deliverance

2 Replies

I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

The statement above ends with a quotation from Habakkuk. The problem in that book is 1. That Israel is in great sin and 2. God promises to deal with it by bringing about the more sinful Chaldeans.  This presents a problem to Habakkuk: How can God respond to sin with more sin?

The Hell-in-a-handbasket message of Romans 1.18ff presents the same dynamic.  God responds to sin by punishing people by giving them over to more sin.  But how can God do this?  Why does he not stop it?  After all, while the punishment may be just, it doesn’t really satisfy a holy God.  It is mixed with kindness and patience all along the way, and a great deal of forbearance in passing over sin:

Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God told Habakkuk that he would used the Chaldeans to bring about a righteous result.  The righteous will live by faith in God’s promise.  Likewise, the very piling up of sin on top of sin, and thus wrath on top of wrath, brings about a moment, the “present time” when Christ can be put forward to satisfy all that wrath and appease God:

But now the God’s righteousness has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— God’s righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, through faithfulness. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faithfulness of Jesus.

So like God’s kindness and blessing on the Chaldeans enabled them to be used to judge Israel and bring about a better situation.  God’s patience in enduring sin and allowing sin to pile on sin and build up wrath, precisely gave Jesus the moment he needed to add his own rejection to that sin and then propitiate the wrath of God.

Thus:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

through the law comes knowledge [as in direct experience] of sin.

For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.

It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.

Having begun his argument with the prophecy of Habakkuk, Paul ends with a quotation from Elihu who tells Job of his sufferings,

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Job wanted to know why he was subjected to so much suffering and he never got an answer.  Romans tells us why God has allowed the world to get so bad up to the first century.  It doesn’t answer everything, of course, but it does provide a partial answer and the evidence of that a full answer will be given some day.

The principle that must be remembered is that God does not judge arbitrarily (even if we can never know enough to predict when and how he will judge the world).  He let the world progress in evil until finally sending the flood.  He refused to give the land to Abraham because the Canaanites were not bad enough (Sodom and Gomorrah were worse, so he judged them sooner).  Throughout Israel’s history God was patient before finally judging.  And each time he saved a remnant and rebuilt a new Israel from grace so that their sin afterward was all the more serious.

When Jesus arrives, Israel is no longer good enough to be conquered by mere Chaldeans, and the Romans aren’t really bad enough to count.  Demons have been unleashed on Israel like never before.

So this is the picture: God decided not to judge Adam and Eve when they sinned.  If he wanted a chance to deliver a justifying verdict, he needed to produce the right opportunity for a Judgment Day.

And he did.  Romans explains how and why.

Thus, as I blogged earlier, without Romans John 3.16 makes no sense.

Here are my first notes I scratched out that led me here.

How Romans Gets Misunderstood

8 Replies
  • 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.

Romans 1.3, 4 as Paul’s Gospel

Leave a reply

What is the Gospel?  The Gospel is:

concerning his Son, who was begotten by a seed of David according to the flesh and was appointed to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord

There has been resistance to the idea that this is Paul’s summary of his own Gospel.  But consider Second Timothy 2.8:

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel

There are some other parallels especially if we include Paul’s appeal to the “Old Testament.”  Compare Romans 1.1-4 to Acts 13.dd:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was begotten by a seed of David according to the flesh and was appointed to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord

And we bring you the good news [Gospel] that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,“‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”

While I don’t have a special argument that Paul wrote Herews, it begins in a much similar way to Romans:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.For to which of the angels did God ever say,“You are my Son,today I have begotten you”?

Even though Xmas is Over, here is a repost of a Christmas sermon I’ve preached in the last few years

Leave a reply

WHY FAITH? THE GIFT OF THE NEW CREATION: Luke 1.26-38; Romans 4.16-25

What is the meaning of the virgin birth?

Perhaps the most popular answer to that question is that it is necessary to believe in the virgin birth in order to defend and affirm the deity of Christ. Jesus is both God and man. If Jesus had a human father, then that would mean that he was only human.

But the fact is that Jesus could have united himself to a human nature formed in the normal way just as easily as a human nature formed from only his mother. The full humanity and deity of Jesus did not require that he not have a human father.

(Now, there is a rather obtuse but important theological point which is easier to defend because of the virgin birth. It is easier to defend orthodoxy against Nestorianism. Nestorius claimed that in the savior there were two distinct persons who worked together, the human person Christ and the divine person God. So it is alright to call Mary the Christotokos, but not the Theotokos. We can call her the bearer of Christ, but not the bearer of God. There were two separate persons involved and Mary was the mother to only one of them, the human one. Now, if Jesus was produced by both a man and a woman, this heresy would have been much harder to refute, since one could argue that a human person is the inevitable result of human procreation. But because of the virgin birth, we have additional reason to assert that there was one and only one person involved in Jesus, the person of the eternal Son of God united to a human nature so that the one eternal person was both human and divine. However, as I said, this is a rather obtuse point.)

Another explanation assigned to the virgin birth is the sinlessness of Christ. Christ didn’t have a human father because a human father would have contaminated him with original sin. The problem with this idea is that women are sinful too. The virgin birth has nothing to do with Christ’s sinlessness. In any case, as soon as we invent human cloning and find that the offspring of women are just as sinful as those conceived in the normal way, we will have empirical counter-evidence for this possibility.

One last explanation that I will mention is that the sinlessness of Christ requires a virgin birth because sexual activity involves lust, in therefore inherently sinful, and thus contaminates the offspring with original sin. There are several problems with this. First of all, sex between a husband and wife does not involve lust. Lust is an unlawful desire and there is nothing unlawful about desiring one’s spouse. Second of all, the Bible nowhere teaches that there is some sin in the sex act which makes the offspring sinful. Rather, the Bible teaches that we are sinners because we come from sinful people. Finally, there are people who have been conceived through in vitro fertilization and they are just as sinful as the rest of us.

So neither Christ’s deity, nor his sinlessness, require a virgin birth. Why, then, was Jesus born to a virgin?

It was a sign miracle. A sign of what? We’re given a clue in Luke 1.35:

The angel answered and said to her: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Now, this may sound like the virgin birth is tied to Christ’s deity, but I think there is something else in view of that phrase in Luke’s Gospel. If we flip over a couple of chapters to chapter 3, verse 22, we read that when Jesus was baptized,

a voice came out of heaven: You are my beloved Son, in you I am well-pleased.

And immediately then, in verses 23 through 36, Luke launches into a genealogy of Jesus, which ends with Adam and calls Adam “the son of God.” Being the son of God means being a new Adam, a second creation.

JUST TO MAKE SURE you all know that my theology is orthodox, let me show you how Luke reveals the deity of Christ in what he tells us about his birth. We see it in the song of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. In Luke 1.76, we read from his prophetic song to God regarding the infant John, where he says.

And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
“For you will go on before the LORD to prepare his ways.”

Zacharias is quoting from Malachi 3.1, which speaks of an angel going before the Lord God. So according to Zacharias, John is going to prepare the way for God himself to visit Israel. Yet it is patently obvious that John is intended to prepare the way for Jesus. Elizabeth, remember, calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” Everyone involved knows that John was born to be the forerunner of Jesus. Yet somehow he is, at the same time, the forerunner of God.

Preparing the way for Jesus means preparing the way for God. In Luke, as we have seen in First Corinthians, we find the most distinctive Christian messages precisely at the places were it is most obviously Jewish. The deity of Christ is affirmed through the use of Old Testament prophecy.

BUT, IF SON OF God is a term in Luke used not to designate the deity of Jesus but his status as a second Adam, then the virgin birth makes perfect sense. As in the case of Adam, God formed Jesus in a unique and different way—by a direct act, if you will. Jesus is shown, in the virgin birth, to be something new. He is not simply the product of the past, but is a genuine second creation, a new beginning.

In such a case, then, we’re in a position to think about the meaning of the virgin birth. The meaning of Christmas as a whole would indeed include reflection on the incarnation–on God with us in the person of Jesus, even the infant Jesus. But by singling out the virgin birth I think we have a rather precise target to aim for. Listen again to what the angel says in Luke 1:

The angel answered and said to her: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God.

God has the power. He can do the impossible. He can make all things new. He can save us.

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written: A father of many nations have I made you.) In the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

God has the power. He can do the impossible. He can make all things new. He can save us. For this reason it is by faith.

FOR THIS REASON IT is by faith. Deliverance from death and damnation is given to those who believe. Why? Because that is the only appropriate marker for those who are saved utterly and entirely by God’s gracious gift. Ultimately, God does not save those marked out by good works, or by circumcision, or by baptism, or by regular church attendance, or by monogamy, or by any other way of life. If those things have any part to play whatever, it is only because they demonstrate or reinforce faith. And, of course, it should go without saying that anyone who thinks anything they do can actually earn or merit from God their deliverance from sin and death is suffering a demonic delusion.

You see, just like Elizabeth and her husband Zacharias could do nothing to produce a child, so none of us could do nothing to save ourselves. Just as Mary could not produce a son as a virgin, neither can we escape the curse unless God sovereignly delivers us from it by a mighty act of his power. Like a barren women weeping for the son that she will never have, we are in a hopeless position unless God works on our behalf—unless he chooses to save us.

Jesus taught, as recorded in John 3.6:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Mary’s flesh was as good as dead. Of herself, her womb could produce no life. Life had to come from God—from God’s Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. Mary is unique, but yet a unique member of a set. She is the climax of a long list of women who found themselves barren. Elizabeth is just one example. Before her, Hannah was barren. But she cried out to God and God heard her cry and gave her new life. She gave birth to Samuel, a judge and deliverer of his people. Before Hannah there was the mother of Samson, who was also barren for some time until the Angel of the Lord appeared to her and promised her a son. Before her was Rebekah and then Sarah the wife of Abraham. All these women and others were barren by nature but given children by the powerful intervention of God.

These children were not a triumph on the part of these women. They were not the result of painstaking toil and effort. No, they were completely and totally gracious gifts with which they had nothing to do. The same is true for Mary. All she could do is receive the news of God’s gift with gladness and trust him to fulfill his promise. Just like Abraham:

In hope against hope he believed; so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken—So shall your descendants be. Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised He was able also to perform.

So Abraham contemplated death all around him, yet he believed God and gave him glory in the confidence that God was both willing and able to bring life from death. Contrast Paul’s description of Abraham with Paul’s description of unbelief in Romans 1.20ff:

Since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

So mankind as a whole looks at nature, at themselves and at the other animals, and at the things around them, and they conclude that they or the animals or inanimate things, must be God. Abraham saw only death around him and gave glory to God. Humanity normally sees the divine all around them and gives glory to these dead things. Of itself, nothing in creation can give life. It si all entirely dependent on God. But man mainly imagines these mere created things to be worthy of divine worship. Abraham contemplated himself as dead but believed in God. People contemplate themselves as alive and believe only in themselves.

LET ME REMIND YOU that this analysis of belief and unbelief goes all the way back to the first sin. In the third chapter of Genesis, we read that the Snake tempted Adam and Eve by claiming that they would not die when they ate from the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Rather, the fruit would automatically, against God’s wishes or plan, make them wise. God had lied to them about death resulting from eating the tree. The tree would impart life and make them like God—make them divine.

There you have it. The first sin is unbelief. God’s promises cannot be trusted. Things work of themselves and give us divine life without God’s help. Those were Satan’s lies. Eve did not contemplate the fruit as dead and yet believe God’s promise and give glory to God. Rather she exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a piece of fruit. Original sin is unbelief. The act of official disobedience which followed was simply a consequence of a lack of faith.

SO THE OPPOSITE OF original sin is faith. And it is the key to salvation as well. Why? The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 4.16:

in order that it may be in accordance with grace

It is all a gift. It has nothing to do with what we can do. That is what Paul says when he invokes the example of Abraham trusting God to give him a child by Sarah. Sarah’s womb was dead but Abraham trusted God to do what he promised—trusted God to give life to the dead and call into being that which did not exist. Mary does exactly the same thing—trust God to give life to her dead womb and call into being that which did not exist.

So the message of the virgin birth is the message of the Gospel. God can do anything. He can even save sinners. And the only appropriate response to the virgin birth is the same as the only appropriate response to the Gospel: belief; faith; trust. God has promised to provide a complete deliverance for us from all our sins and all the effects of the curse. Indeed, that deliverance has already begun. The conception of Jesus by the power of the Spirit and his subsequent birth was a milestone in that deliverance. The rebirth of Jesus by the power of the Spirit in his resurrection from the dead was the beginning of that deliverance. But both demand a response: believe the good news of God’s deliverance.

If Jesus can give life to an infertile womb, he can give new life to anyone whom he chooses. And whom has he chosen? Whom has he promised to justify?

Those who are good enough? Those who read the Bible to their children five days out of seven? Those who drive within the speed limit? Those who vote for conservative politicians? Those who not only observe the Sabbath but make sure everyone knows they observe the Sabbath?

No. He will vindicate those who believe his promise to save the ungodly. Abraham worshiped other gods. He had no claim on the true God except his need for mercy. But when God promised him new life, he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. And when Mary heard the word of the angel promising her life in her womb and a deliverer from her sins, she followed in Abraham’s footsteps. She believed.

Behold the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.

As Elizabeth said to her a little later, in Luke 1.45:

Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.

In the Gospel God has spoken a promise of mercy and new life to us. Let’s learn from the virgin birth. Let’s believe that God will fulfill his promise.

Romans is Eschatology

Leave a reply

For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

One would expect Paul to contrast the fact that “death reigned” with a statement that “life now reigns.”  But no.  He says that We Reign.

Notice how closely this follows Daniel’s vision in Chapter 7

First, Daniel’s vision goes back to creation with winds/spirit (same word) above the waters.  Then beasts are created and one like a “son of Adam” (if we translate the Aramaic back into Hebrew) is given dominion over them.

And the vision shows this happening through a judicial sentence–a justification.

Furthermore, this justification is also the giving of authority to the saints to reign.

As I looked,

thrones were placed,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat;
his clothing was white as snow,
and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames;
its wheels were burning fire.
A stream of fire issued
and came out from before him;
a thousand thousands served him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him;
the court sat in judgment,
and the books were opened.

I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

And the interpretation given to this vision is that “the saints” will be given authority.

As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.

But the court shall sit in judgment,
and his dominion shall be taken away,
to be consumed and destroyed to the end.
And the kingdom and the dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey them.

In Aramaic, being “given judgment” could simply mean given a justifying verdict.  But John’s Revelation seems to interpret it differently:

Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed.

Jesus also, when confronted with the paralytic, seemed to understand Daniel as saying that the authority to judge (and to pardon) was given to the Son of Man.

Romans works for Postmillennialists and maybe Premillennialists.  I don’t see Amillennialists surviving the message as well.

Before Jesus, for believing Gentiles, the bracelet said W. W. I. D?

4 Replies

The Gentiles did not have “the Law.”  They could not build a tabernacle in their own lands and claim those lands were Promised.  They did not have a priesthood.

But they could still learn God’s holy will for their lives.  They could learn about the true God from Israel and they could learn how to trust and obey Him.  Hiram King of Tyre, the Queen of Sheba, all of Ninevah had to appropriate the Mosaic Covenant in this fashion.

Thus Paul writes, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law by nature, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

Gentiles would have to ask what God would want an Isrealite to do apart from the covenant of circumcision, and Land and Priesthood and Santuary.  In this very different situation, What Would Israel Do?

Romans 6 and the Great Commission

1 Reply

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (6.1) What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?  (6.15a)

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (6.2) 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? (6.15b, 16)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (6.3ff)

by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

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… (6.17ff)

by teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

(Note, I have said that I don’t think 6.1 has been understood.  I should note that by 6.15 we do seem in more “traditional” territory.)

Circumcision and Law in Romans

Leave a reply

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law by nature, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

So much text to free associate; so little time.

You are joined to the new age in baptism

2 Replies

I’ve mentioned that the question in Romans 6.1 is not a question about “Why repent if God always forgives?” but rather a mocking application question, “If God aggravates sin in order to bring about the atonement and grace as a result, then why shouldn’t we follow God’s example?”  It is the same question dealt with in Romans 3.1-8.  In Romans 3, as in Romans 9, with the potter and clay analogy, Paul invokes the uniqueness of God:

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?  But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?  And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

Paul’s argument seems to that, because we know God will in fact judge all people, they must be responsible for their actions, even if God is using them to bring about his desired results.

In Romans 5, Paul emphasizes how grace abounded in the wake of the many trespasses, increased by the Law.  So in Romans 6.1, the question is, “Are we to remain in sin that grace may abound.”

While N. T. Wright does not give the same analysis of 6.1, he still has some valuable things to say.  He points out that the question is not about “continuing to sin” so much as “remaining in sin”–the age of sin.

So while Paul could have responded to the question the same way as in Romans 3 and 9, here he brings it up with a different agenda.  He wants to point out where we fit in God’s timing.  His point is that we are now on the other side of the shift.  God is no longer increasing trespasses to provide for the condemnation of sin in the flesh; he has brought about the death of that age and the birth of new life in the death and resurrection of Christ.  That is basically what he says in Romans 6.2.

But this is not automatic.  Even though the death and resurrection of Jesus is an objective event and an objective transition in history, it does not necessarily bring about the salvation of everyone.  Thus Romans 6.3-11:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 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.

This passage has been used to say that baptism is supposed to be some kind of burial.  But that cannot be right.  Christ’s burial took place long ago.  His death is past.  The only time we could have been buried “with” him was during those three days after he had died on the cross.  The point is not that we are buried or that we die at some point in our own lives.  Paul could say that but he is not saying it here.  Rather, the point is that when we are “united with him” so that his past history counts to us.

Think about the confession an Israelite was required to make in offering sacrifice to God

And you shall make response before the Lord your God, “A wandering Aramean was my father. And he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number, and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians treated us harshly and humiliated us and laid on us hard labor. Then we cried to the Lord, the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great deeds of terror, with signs and wonders. And he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And behold, now I bring the first of the fruit of the ground, which you, O Lord, have given me.” And you shall set it down before the Lord your God and worship before the Lord your God (Dt 26.5-10).

Now here we have an objective, past, corporate fact—the calling of Abraham, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan.  But notice how it is all personal.  God rescued me from Egypt and brought me into the Promised Land.  This would be true of an Israelite even though it was generations later.  It would even be true if his family had come in as Gentile immigrants and proselytes.  As circumcised citizens they would have been required to make this same confession.

Corporate realities apply to individuals.  I tell my children that General George Washington led the continental army and won “our” freedom from the British—and that is true even though I have no idea if my ancestors came to colonial America or if they immigrated after the new nation was born.  I can celebrate the Fourth of July regardless, just as an Israelite could celebrate the Passover regardless of whether his forefathers had been in Egypt or if he came from a line of proselytes who were adopted into a tribe much later.  Each Israelite must confess God’s grace: “the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great deeds of terror, with signs and wonders. And he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.”

“‘By a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’ It shall be as a mark on your hand or frontlets between your eyes, for by a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt” (Ex 13.14-16).

“When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the Lord our God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’” (Deut 6.20-25).

Read Esther, which ends with all those Gentiles all over the known world becoming Jews.  They all had to follow these laws and say these things.  It happened to other people but they were included in it.  Thus they had the obligation to trust in God and him only.  The First Commandment applied to them complete with the Prologue:  “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.  You shall have no other gods before me.”

So if you join to Israel (which for males was effected by circumcision) then Israel’s history counts for you. And if you join to Christ, then his death and resurrection count for you.  If baptism is the way one is officially identified with Christ, then it officially means who have died, been buried, and been raised with Christ, even though he went through these events long ago.

Baptism is not time travel.  It is simply an identification ceremony.

But is Romans 6 really baptism?  Protestants have until recently been virtually unanimous in saying “yes” to this question, along with the rest of the Church throughout history.  This consensus is almost certainly correct.  Paul is plainly writing a letter that is very much driven by the Great Commission.  It begins and ends with it:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ (Romans 1.1-6).

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen (Romans 16.25-27).

If one thinks about the Great Commission it would be surprising if Romans was missing a reference to water baptism.

Remember, despite bizarre stuttering in English translations, Jesus presents baptism as an instrument (not the only one) to discipleship:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and disciple all nations, by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and by teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

There is no need to fear some kind of superstitious transmutation of the water here.  Baptism is simply the ceremony that the Spirit uses to assign people to Jesus.  People are identified to Jesus and taken into his possession, just like an adoption ceremony or a wedding ceremony can relate two people to one another in a specific way.  Just as a Gentile used to have to get circumcised in order to belong to Israel, and then got to eat Passover as if his ancestors were in Egypt, so all who are baptized are regarded as having died to the old age and are now alive in the new age.

Of course, Paul would never play this off against faith (see 1 Corinthians 10.1ff) but for believers, he expects and encourages them to look back on their baptisms as the point of transition in their own lives which unites them to Jesus and the transition he underwent and brought about in his death and resurrection.