Category Archives: Romans

From God’s Faithfulness to our Faith

Leave a reply

The author of Hebrews shows that the words “faith” and “faithfulness” are close for a reason: Because God is faithful, we have a firm ground for our faith.  Thus 10.23: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”  And in the great “faith chapter” we read about Sarah, “By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.”  Sarah is an example for the Hebrews, for the writer has exhorted them to emulate her: “Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God’s house.”

In these cases, when we have faith in God we are reckoning or considering him faithful.  (One could easily use the terms “trust” and “trustworthiness” of God to understand what is being promised and expected.)

The author of Hebrews appeals to (a paraphrase of) Habakkuk 2.4 in exhorting his readers to remain trusting:

But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For,

“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

Habbakuk is a short prophecy that deals with the question of God’s righteousness.  But it also deals with the essential importance of faith in God.  The answer to God’s righteousness (as we see in the conclusion of the book in chapter 3) is found in the fact that his promises are sure and can be trusted no matter what:

I hear, and my body trembles;
my lips quiver at the sound;
rottenness enters into my bones;
my legs tremble beneath me.
Yet I will quietly wait for the day of trouble
to come upon people who invade us.

Though the fig tree should not blossom,
nor fruit be on the vines,
the produce of the olive fail
and the fields yield no food,
the flock be cut off from the fold
and there be no herd in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the Lord;
I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
God, the Lord, is my strength;
he makes my feet like the deer’s;
he makes me tread on my high places.

Thus, the statement in Habakkuk 2.4b, “the righteous shall live by his faith,” is exemplified by the ending song in the book.

This is not the only time that Habakkuk 2.4 is used in the New Testament.  Paul’s letter, like Habakkuk is centered on the question of the righteousness and faithfulness of God.  In fact, Paul clearly associates the two descriptions of God’s character as being virtually the same:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say?

Our unfaithfulness demonstrates God’s faithfulness and our unrighteousness demonstrates God’s righteousness.  In this case, Paul is speaking particularly of how Israel’s unbelief and disobedience in crucifying Jesus was in fact how God fulfilled his promise to deal with sin and bring salvation so that, in the Gospel, the story of Jesus’ resurrection, the righteousness of God is publicly declared (Romans 1.1-4, 1.16).

Thus, if God is righteous and faithful, or trustworthy, then the only proper responses is to have faith or trust in him.  Paul makes this thematic for his letter to Romans by using the same word twice as a wordplay:

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.”

Some tranlsations associate this only with an emphasis on faith (i.e. NIV, “by faith from first to last”).  I think it makes more sense if the wordplay is pointing both to God’s righteousness/faithfulness and our believing response.  Thus, “God’s righteousness is revealed: from [His] faithfulness to [our] faith.”  The same word has both meanings depending on context and here Paul is taking advantage of the ambiguity to show his theme for the letter.

This especially corresponds to the latter part of Romans 3 where we see the dynamic.  Let me represent faithfulness/righteousness/trustworthiness in bold and faith or trust in italics:

“But now 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.”

Excursus: “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”

Many Bible translations do as the ESV does:

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”

This is possible, but earlier in chapter 3 the same construction is translated as “the faithfulness of God,” not “faith in God.”  And then again in the next chapter we read of “the faith of Abraham” not “faith in Abraham.”

But what really makes up my mind is the parallel in this paragraph.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God 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.

Now, the ESV changes “through faith” or “through faithfulness” to “to be received by faith.”  But Paul could certainly have said that more clearly.  He is talking here about God’s act in history in “condemning sin in the flesh” (Romans 8.3).  This is not something that occurs within a believer’s subjectivity but his objective act in Jesus.  It makes much more sense to say that this was God’s righteousness, providing propitiation.  And that this both demonstrated his faithfulness and was done through Jesus’ faithfulness.

And since Jesus was only faithful by trusting his father, it was also his faith and trust.

Jesus wants to be your personal John Calvin: A Translation of Romans 2

2 Replies

But if you call yourself a Calvinist and rely on Reformed theology and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the Westminster Standards; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in Reformed theology the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in Calvinism dishonor God by failing to live like Christians. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Evangelicals because of you.”

For Calvinism indeed is of value if you obey the Gospel, but if you don’t conform to the Gospel, your “Reformed” world and life view becomes deformed. So, if a man who is not Reformed conforms his life to the Gospel, will not his non-reformed theology be regarded as Reformed? Then he who is nominally not Reformed but keeps the Gospel will condemn you who have the written Confession and Presbyterian government but don’t conform to the Gospel. For no one is a Calvinist who is merely one outwardly, nor is the Reformed faith outward and physical. But a Reformed Christian is one inwardly, and the Reformed faith is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His formation is not from man but from God.

The nation was entrusted

Leave a reply

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Israel was given the Ark of the Covenant, and in that Ark was the two tablets of stone with the decalogue written on them by God’s finger.  They also had a national covenant that involved the duty to preserve God’s word (his oracles).  Every seven years they were supposed to gather together for a week and hear God’s word read to them.

They also had a tribe of Levi especially called to lead in local prayer and a priesthood to serve in the central sanctuary.  Elders at the gate also had a responsibility to rule according to God’s word and later kings were to keep a copy of the text near them.

There were age requirements as well establishing different levels of responsibility in Israel’s community and different requirements for office.

And every male was circumcised from the time he was eight days old.

Paul moves smoothly back and forth between the corporate and the personal.  Circumcision is value (or advantage in some translations), because the person circumcised is thereby entrusted with the oracles of God.  (Were a Gentile to convert and be circumcised he would then be entrusted as well as a new member in Israel’s calling.)

The national calling of Israel, given at Mt. Sinai when the Ten Commandments were delivered to Israel for her service, is given to each individual Jew according to their own stage and place in life.

Thus, baptism entrusts us with the new life of Christ given to him and to His people at his resurrection and ascension.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 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.

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The calling and identity of the Church is the calling and identity of each baptized member just as the value of circumcision was to have been entrusted with the oracles of God.  We have been entrusted with the death and resurrection of Jesus–to put to death the old Adam and live in the New Adam.

Hypothetical perfect obedience or faith?

9 Replies

Romans 2 describes someone who will be accepted by God:

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.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 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. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus…

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Now here is Acts 10 when Peter is sent to the household of Cornelius:

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Then James made this suggestion at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

Which was agreed to and sent out to the churches as a decree:

The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

So what shall we say to these things?  Peter learns that God shows no partiality because all Gentile god-fearers are accepted by Him.  Paul teaches that God shows no partiality because the Gentiles who persevere in godliness will be granted immortality and will condemn those who are Jews who do not obey God.  At the Jerusalem Council, likewise, the issue is what obedience is required, and the Gentiles are told to keep obeying basic morality: no vampirism, idolatry, or sexual deviancy.

So it is hard to believe that Romans 2 would be presenting a hypothetical perfect obedience that could hypothetically produce glory, honor, and immortality apart from Christ.

It might be worth considering that Romans 2 and Acts 10 and 15 are all dealing with people who know the true God.  I find it hard to believe that the Romans or the god-fearing Gentiles would ever dream that sinless perfect obedience is a possibility.  First Kings 8.46, Psalm 130.3-4, Psalm 143.2, and Ecclesiastes 7.20 are not the only passages that would rule that out from consideration and teach that God only can accept us by grace.  While we tend to read Romans 1.18ff as an argument that everyone sins, Paul does not list universal sins but the depths of apostasy.  Furthermore, while we use Romans 3.23 as asserting the same thing as the passages I just listed, Paul does not seem to be using the word “sin” to refer to any disobedience in thought, word, or deed, but for falling into real unbelief and apostasy.  After all, we all have ongoing sin by the first definition, but Paul says, “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5.8).  Whatever a “sinner” is for Paul, it is something that we are no longer.  And since it is very true that we commit ongoing sin (i.e. disobedience) and need God’s ongoing forgiveness, Paul has something more than that in mind.

On the other hand, when Paul preaches to pagans he does seem concerned to show them that they have no hope of winning favor from God by their works.  He told the Athenians,

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served [healed?] by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

So the fact that we all live only by grace, not because of what we think we can do for God is important in confronting paganism.  It just doesn’t seem to be the primary issue in Acts 10, 15, or Romans 2.

Here is somthing I preached many years ago on the Gospel

Leave a reply

I published it on the web in 2003, but preached it in 1998, I think–perhaps early 1999.  Seems related to what I’m doing here.

PAUL’S GOOD NEWS OF THE RESURRECTION

What is the Gospel?

To answer that question, I’m going to read not from the Bible but from a typical piece of political propaganda from the Greco-Roman world. Listen as I read from an inscription about the birthday of Augustus Caesar the emperor of Rome that was dates from 9BC.

The providence which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving to it Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, and by sending in him, as it were, a deliverer for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere. . . . ; the birthday of the god [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the gospel that has come to men through him [found in What Saint Paul Really Said by N. T. Wright].

THE TERM GOSPEL IS a corruption of the Anglo-Saxon word godspell. It is used to translate the Greek word evangel which means “good news,” “glad tidings,” or “joyful message.” And it is a word with an important use in the pagan politics of the first century. It refers to a royal proclamation or an imperial announcement. It is used to describe a report of the birth, or the ascension to the throne, or the victory of a king. In some cases it can refer to more than one of these, since the victory of an aspiring prince can also count as his coronation. By defeating his enemy, he inherits the kingdom and thus becomes a king. Such a declaration is described as a gospel in the ancient world of the first-century Mediterranean region.

But why spend time in pagan literature? What does the Bible have to say?

Well the Bible has something rather similar to say. Let me read a rather literalistic translation of what the angel said to the shepherds at the first Christmas:

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you the gospel of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a deliverer, who is Christ the Lord.

Don’t let centuries of privatized piety obscure the incredible public nature, indeed, the political nature of that declaration. What does the angel say? The angel speaks of one born in the city of David, the ancestral home of the foremost king in Israel’s history. Remember, God had promised that David’s dynasty would rule forever. These shepherds live in a time when Judah is occupied by a foreign pagan empire. To hear of a baby born in the city of David who will be a deliverer at such a time as that had hair-raising implications. Just ask Herod.

Furthermore, this child is said to be Christ the Lord. Lord is an imperial title. It was claimed by Caesar, the Roman Emperor. Christ means “anointed one.” In Israel, Kings were appointed to office by prophets acting as God’s agents who anointed the candidate with oil. Anointing was the Hebrew coronation ceremony. To call a baby “Christ” is to claim that he is God’s promised king.

And the angel describes this announcement he is making as a gospel. Actually, he uses it as a verb. “Behold,” he says, “I evangelize you with great joy.” That’s not exactly the way we think of evangelism today, is it? When we speak of evangelism, we typically think of a sales pitch. But the world picture of the ancients involved a different perspective. The announcement of the birth of Jesus was called a gospel for exactly the same reasons that the birth of Augustus Caesar was called a gospel. It was the announcement of a new king. Except that, in the case of Jesus, the gospel happened to be true.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF GLAD tidings that a king has been born or begun to reign or has conquered his enemies is not only in the ancient world of the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. We can take our cue from Jesus himself when, in Luke 4, he quotes Isaiah 61:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me to preach the gospelto the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.

Again, don’t let centuries of internalizing and spiritualizing rob you of the electrifying meaning of these words for those who first heard them spoken. To use the term gospelin the context of releasing captives and setting free the downtrodden was like setting off dynamite. This was a royal proclamation that could only be understood as revolutionary by those who were hoping that God would liberate Israel from her enemies.

The prophecy Jesus read, by the way, was understood as a prophecy of a return from exile. Isaiah prophesied that God would judge Israel by allowing a foreign empire to invade the land and deport the Israelites. But Isaiah prophesied an eventual restoration when the foreign powers would no longer have the upper hand and the Israelites would be free. And in the Greek translations of these prophecies, the term gospel is used. Consider Isaiah 40.9:

Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of the gospel.
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of the gospel;
Lift it up, do not fear.
Say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your god!”

And now listen to Isaiah 52.7:

How lovely on the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings the gospel,
Who announces peace
And brings the gospel of happiness,
Who announces deliverance,
And says to Zion, “Your god reigns!”

Your God reigns! Israel was conquered and deported by Gentile empires. The temple, where Israel’s god resided, was destroyed. These political events had incredible religious implications for the Hebrews. After all, Israel’s god was the true king of Israel. The word translated as “temple” in the Hebrew Scriptures is exactly the same as the word for the king’s house which is translated into English as “palace.” The fact that God gave up his kingdom in Israel with his palace in Jerusalem, and permitted his people, the Israelites, to be taken away from the land he had given them was a horrible thing. But eventually, it was prophesied, God would again reveal his kingship. He would restore the Israelites to the land and would once again reign among his people in Jerusalem in his palace where he sat enthroned above the Cherubim.

These passages referred to a change in political fortunes–the return from exile. They were not only religious sayings, but political dynamite at the time of Jesus when Israel was suffering under pagan oppression in the form of the occupying Roman Empire and the puppet regime in Palestine which ruled on its behalf.

BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT the gospel is really about is it? Don’t you expect me to tell you that Jesus had nothing to do with a worldly kingdom? Wasn’t he only concerned with an inward, “spiritual” kingdom, rather than a public political regime?

Well, think of the Corinthians. They have shown themselves throughout this letter to be concerned with their individual spiritual attainments. They are obsessed with acquiring wisdom and knowledge and attaining to the heights of spirituality. Some judge themselves to have enough knowledge to eat forbidden food without thinking about how their behavior might affect others. Some think that they should abstain from sex with their spouses because of their great spirituality, without thinking about their marital obligations or the effect of their behavior on their partners. Others actually think that what they do with their bodies is completely unimportant because only the “spiritual” matters–so they don’t hesitate to visit prostitutes. Still others believe they have the right to eat their own meals at the Lord’s Supper irrespective of the public nature of the sacrament in the Church. I could go on and on. Constantly Paul has emphasized the public nature of the Church and our obligations to the Church. And he has also emphasized that we are waiting for the resurrection. No matter what knowledge or spirituality we claim to possess, it is only partial and we are still awaiting the resurrection.

And now the problem is dealt with explicitly. The Corinthians are so satisfied with what they have attained, that the belief in the resurrection of the dead has become irrelevant to their faith. Some among them actually deny that the dead will be raised.

The Gentile world was filled with philosophies which presented inward transformation and privatized experience as the key to wisdom and spirituality. For the Corinthians the gospel had been refashioned to fit inside that sort of framework. In that framework, the resurrection of the dead when we will all be restored to our bodies made no sense. Why should we be concerned about such messy things as bodies when what really matters is the inward, “spiritual,” private reality?

But Paul has a different gospel–a gospel which proclaims the very public fact of the resurrection of Jesus, and, furthermore, fits Jesus’ resurrection into the context of a general resurrection and final judgment. That is what Paul tells the Corinthians here: That the death and resurrection were public events and that the risen Christ showed himself to official witnesses. And that this was all done “according to the Scriptures.”

SO HOW ARE WE to understand the Gospel? Does it deal with public, political matters or private, “spiritual” concerns?

Well, obviously, Jesus did not want a kingdom of the sort that the Pharisees and zealots imagined. But just because Jesus rejected the nationalistic zeal of the conservative Israelites does not mean he was merely concerned with a private, “spiritual” phenomena. The Jews wanted to see God defeat the evil forces which held them in bondage–the pagan empire of Rome. their client kings the Herodians, and the compromised priesthood of the Sadducees. By destroying their enemies and vindicating Israel God would reveal his reign. To announce that his reign was beginning was indeed good news–a gospel in every sense of the world. And that is what Jesus did.

But far from turning the kingdom into an inward private reality, Jesus was even more concerned with public issues than the conservative Israelites who eventually handed him over to Rome. After all, what was the power of any tyrant except the power to kill? Death, not Caesar is public enemy number one. And instead of wasting time leading a rebellion against local politicians, Jesus decided to set his sights a little higher. Instead of delivering Israel from foreign powers, he delivered them from death.

He defeated death. His resurrection was his birth as a new king. His resurrection was his ascension to the throne. His resurrection was the victory that won him a kingdom that would never end. And the announcement of that birth, coronation, and victory can only be called the gospel–the good news that the king has come to his kingdom and deliverance has been won from the power of death. The author of Hebrews put it this way:

since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.

THAT THE DEATH AND resurrection of Jesus is the very heart and soul of the gospel is made abundantly clear from the way Paul writes here. He states that this report is what he had received and delivered to the Corinthians. This is the same language he used to describe how he had passed on the way to do the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11. This is not simply something Paul came up with, it is the memorized gospel which he is given to them.

And there is plenty of other evidence that the resurrection was the centerpiece of the gospel. To just give one example, consider Acts 17.18 where we are told that the Greeks in Athens thought Paul was propounding new deities–plural. Why would someone mistake a monotheist for preaching more than one god? Was he talking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No. Acts tells us that they mistook Paul’s message as one proclaiming new gods because (quote) “he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.” Given how this would sound in Greek, it is likely they mangled Paul’s message and heard him proclaim Jesus and Anastasia. The resurrection was so central to Paul’s message that they actually though Paul was talking about a goddess.

And there are plenty of other passages which show us that all the preaching of the Gospel involved preaching the resurrection. In fact, it is not uncommon for good Protestants, when they first start reading the sermons in the book of Acts, to complain that no one explains the reason for Christ’s substitutionary suffering. The major point reiterated in all these sermons is that Jesus is king because he was victorious over death.

IF JESUS HAS DEFEATED death, what does that mean? As we continue through this chapter we will mention several things, but I want to list a few preliminary points. Some of these I hope some of us are familiar with, but even so we can never hear these things too often. Let me begin by saying that when Paul emphatically states that Jesus died for our sins and rose again “according to the Scriptures” he is not merely pointing out that the Scriptures predicted this event, but that the Scriptures provide the comprehensive interpretation of this event. We’ll see next week that Paul’s argument about how the resurrection of Jesus is related to the resurrection of everyone at the final judgment presupposes Biblical categories which directly challenge the Corinthians.

So what is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection? A basic point both because it is simple and because it is incredibly important: If God raised up Jesus from the grave then death must be a bad thing. When you proclaim the resurrection to someone, don’t forget to make this implication clear. If death needed to defeated, then it must be an enemy. It is not a gentle sleep. It is not a doorway to a better world. It is horrible. It is to be feared. To say otherwise is to make a mockery of the sacrifice which Jesus made for us.

And if death is so horrible, why is it a part of God’s good world? If you want to prove to people that we all disobey God and are alienated from him, then you need to get them to face up to death. God has put the world under the curse of death. A righteous God could only do that for a good reason. By rebelling against God from the time of the first human being, we have brought God’s anger upon ourselves. By showing how Jesus resurrection is the solution to our problem, we can demonstrate what the nature of the problem really is. God is altogether good, but we are evil.

But despite that, God in Jesus, who was not evil, joined us in our cursed existence, suffered under the full effects of the curse and then attained to new life. Preaching the resurrection means preaching the forgiveness of our sins. That’s why Paul could dare to be confident as a called Apostle even though he had persecuted the church. If Jesus conquered death than even the most horrendous sins are not beyond Jesus. He can liberate us from our sins, both in pardoning them and in giving us the power to more and more live in service to God rather than disobedience to him.

HAVING SAID THAT, LET’S tie this to another important theme in the Bible: Faith.

If Jesus died and rose again, then we can trust him to forgive our violations of God’s commands, and to liberate us from the effects of the curse which are all around us and in our very selves. Going back to Isaiah’s prophecies which ultimately point to Jesus, two characteristics in God are singled out that differentiate God from all false gods and pretenders: According to Isaiah 45.24, the true God is righteous or faithful and the true God is strong. That’s why he is trustworthy. He can be trusted to keep his promise to forgive his people all their sins and he can be trusted to be powerful enough to forgive our sins. Both those two characteristics are demonstrated in the resurrection. Jesus died and rose again to provide us, who were alienated from God and doomed to die eternally, complete liberation from all our sins. He wouldn’t have bothered if he wasn’t willing to actually rescue us. Secondly, in his resurrection we see that God, through the weakness of crucified human flesh, ironically enough, is strong enough to rescue us. He has defeated death. He has defeated death because he was faithful to keep his promise to us to do so, and because he was stronger than death.

So you can trust him. That’s all that faith means, after all; simply trust. If you believe that Jesus defeated death you know he is willing and able to help you. There is no wrong you have done which he is unwilling to forgive. There is no problem you face which he cannot conquer. There is no amount of hardship you face which won’t end up resulting in your glorification if you trust the one who endured the ultimate hardship so that he could gain glory for us.

So we see the entire gospel unfolding from the resurrection. The resurrection means that death is a result of our own wickedness, but that God has overcome that wickedness by suffering death in Jesus and then rising from the dead. The resurrection means that Jesus has defeated death after dying in our place so that all our sins can be forgiven and all our problems can be overcome. And the resurrection therefore means that we must have faith, we must believe, we must trust God to forgive our sins and rescue us from the curse of death and all other curses as well.

BUT THERE’S MORE. IF you truly believe that God conquered death in Jesus Christ, then you must realize that he is the king over all. He is not simply a small voice in your conscience. He is not merely an invisible friend. He is not simply the object of your private meditation. No, he is the man who killed death. No conqueror on earth can ever come close to his accomplishment. He has become the ruler of all the kings of the earth. He is just as much a force in the universe as any world leader you can think of, except that any world leader you can think of must eventually bow his or her knee to him.

And that means that if you truly believe. If you have faith. If you trust in the gospel, you will “bow the knee” now–and not bother to wait for some future confrontation. If death can’t withstand Jesus, neither can you. He is your rightful king and you need to surrender your heart promptly and sincerely. He has vanquished death; let him rule your life. There is no attitude in your heart, no thought in hour head, no habit in your hands that you should not be willing to change or abolish or develop according to what Jesus tells you in His Word, the gospel. The gospel is a royal summons given to you by heralds for the king. The Bible scholar, N. T. Wright puts it this way:

When the herald makes a royal proclamation, he says, “Nero (or whoever) has become emperor.” He does not say “If you would like to have an experience of living under an emperor, you might care to try Nero” The proclamation is an authoritative summons to obedience–in Paul’s case, to what he calls “the obedience of faith” [quoting from Romans 1.5].

Whom you trust and whom you serve will always be bound together. If you believe that Jesus is the high king, you will want to be bound to his service. You will want to be numbered among his people–those whom he has promised to save. You will want to join and remain in the institutional church which was established on the foundation of the prophets and Apostles, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone–not because you think that can somehow earn you new life (New life is completely a free gift of the resurrection), but because you will want to express your loyalty to the emperor of the world and be marked off before God and others as one of his followers.

THERE IS ONE FINAL thing to say about the nature of the gospel of the resurrection. Actually there are many things to say, and we’ll see in the next few sundays that Paul has some things to say, but I will just make one more general point. If we realize that the gospel is centered on the resurrection, then we must realize that it is therefore centered on the person of Jesus himself. Compare verse 1 to verse 12:

Now I make known to you brothers the gospel which I preached to you.Now if Christ is preached to you . . .

Preaching the gospel is preaching Christ. The gospel, as a royal announcement, is not simply a history lesson. To announce the birth of Augustus Caesar is not intended to simply inform you of an important date in history. It is intended to introduce you to an extremely important person. The point of proclaiming the resurrection is not simply to let you know that someone rose from the dead, one more strange fact in the universe, but rather to introduce you to the king of the universe. The gospel presents us with Jesus the risen deliverer. He is the center of our message and should be the center of our lives. He is the resurrection and the life. When we present the resurrection we are not merely describing an event but explaining why a person is now king by telling of his victory.

UNLIKE THE CORINTHIANS, NONE of us denies the resurrection. Or do we. How many times this week have I denied my Lord and denied the power of his new life in what I have thought, felt, said, or done? All I’ve given you this morning is simply the basic gospel. But we can never hear the gospel enough. We continue in the faith the same way we come to faith–by hearing the word preached, placing anew our trust in God who raised Jesus from the dead, and repenting of our sins. May God grant us all to do this faithfully in response to the royal proclamation that Jesus is Lord.

How is it “therefore”?

Leave a reply

Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.

So: “they” are condemned for not only doing evil, but approving it.  “Therefore” you who don’t approve it have no excuse.

Paul’s argument is more complicated than commonly understood.

Would Paul’s readers agree they have done the “very same things”?

Who boasts in and who breaks the Law?

Leave a reply

You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

But where is it written?

The only Hebrew Scripture I can find are Isaiah 52.5 and Ezekiel 36.20-38. But in neither of these passages do the Gentiles blaspheme because they see how sinful the Israelites are.  Rather, they blaspheme because Israel is in exile and has suffered defeat.  This means that Israel has not been protected by their God which leads to skepticism about the God of Israel.

But Israel wasn’t judged because of the inherent sinfulness and sinning that is committed by God’s people.  They were judged for the extreme covenant-breaking sin of unbelief and idolatry.  They were sent into exile due to long-term national apostasy.

There are passages in Scripture which state clearly that every human being sins and is sinful.  Yet from Romans 1.18 onward, Paul does not bother to avail himself of any of them.

Why?

Stop confusing the Bible for the sake of Theology: Romans 1.17

3 Replies

One of the ways in which Biblical literacy is discouraged for the sake of soteriological safety is in the way people are taught to think that Paul actually says in Romans 1.17: in the Gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed.”

Paul’s statement means that God’s righteousness is revealed in the Gospel. You would think that would be uncontroversial. After all, consider the OT allusions:

Psalm 98.2:

Oh sing to the Lord a new song,
for he has done marvelous things!
His right hand and his holy arm
have worked salvation for him.
The Lord has made known his salvation;
he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations.
He has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness
to the house of Israel.
All the ends of the earth have seen
the salvation of our God.

Isaiah 62.2:

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,
and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet,
until her righteousness goes forth as brightness,
and her salvation as a burning torch.
The nations shall see your righteousness,
and all the kings your glory,
and you shall be called by a new name
that the mouth of the Lord will give.
You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the Lord delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you.

Isaiah 60.2-3:

Arise, shine, for your light has come,
and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.
For behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
and thick darkness the peoples;
but the Lord will arise upon you,
and his glory will be seen upon you.
And nations shall come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your rising.

Lift up your eyes all around, and see;
they all gather together, they come to you;
your sons shall come from afar,
and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.
Then you shall see and be radiant;
your heart shall thrill and exult,
because the abundance of the sea shall be turned to you,
the wealth of the nations shall come to you.
A multitude of camels shall cover you,
the young camels of Midian and Ephah;
all those from Sheba shall come.
They shall bring gold and frankincense,
and shall bring good news, the praises of the Lord.
All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you;
the rams of Nebaioth shall minister to you;
they shall come up with acceptance on my altar,
and I will beautify my beautiful house.

Now Paul has said already in his letter to the Romans that the Gospel is the story of the Jesus living, dying, and rising again.  The message is “the gospel of God… 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” (Romans 1.1-4).

Later, Paul states that the saving response of faith to the Gospel message (or literally “Good News”) is a confession that “Jesus is Lord.”  This is not only a reference to deity, but a reference to his exalted status as one raised from the dead.  In case anyone misses this fact, Paul elaborates that one must, with the confession by his mouth, “believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead.”

The point here is that, just as in a preliminary way God demonstrated his righteousness by saving and glorifying Israel, so ultimately he has revealed his righteousness in saving and glorifying Jesus by raising him from the dead.

And this all gets lost when you ignore all of this and preach the text as if the Paul actually says here that God’s righteousness is imputed.  Or worse, consider the NIV: “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed.”  That is not what Paul says, as is demonstrated, among other places, by the first verses in Romans 3 which use the same exact Greek expression:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”

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.

The “righteousness of God” here is the same as his faithfulness.  This is also true in Romans 1.17 where Paul makes a wordplay:

“For in it [i.e. the Gospel or “good news”] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith[fulness–God’s] for [or “to”] faith [i.e. our belief], as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”  The quotation is Habakkuk 2 is especially apropos because it not only speaks of living by trusting in God, but the whole book emphasizes that God is trustworthy because he is righteous.

If one wants to teach on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or (what is the same thing) the subsitutionary atonement, there are places to do that.  Paul’s terminology about God’s righteousness in Romans 1.16-17 is not such a prooftext.

Further reading: see my blog post series on The Righteousness of God.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Implosion then explosion: Why get excited about a large Romans commentary?

Leave a reply

Someone just wrote something that made me grasp the dynamic here.  Most people in the PCA and other Reformed denominations live out their lives hearing sermons on about ten percent of the Bible.  Galatians, Romans, forays into the other Gospels, some other Epistles and then back to Romans.

So the material for preaching has effectively shrunk.  This creates a market for more material. So when someone writes a commentary on Romans that promises to be really really long, that is a real help.  Having shrunk the Bible, a longer one is then created to fill the need.

A thick Romans commentary helps fill the Bible shaped void in a Christian’s heart.

How is monotheism part of Paul’s argument?

Leave a reply

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 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 (Romans 3.28-30).

Medieval Roman Catholics and others have believed that there is one God. How does it help Paul’s argument, if it is an argument directly tied to moral works, to point out that God is one? What is theoretically problematic with the position that the one god will reward Jew and Gentile alike for their moral behavior? Yet Paul says that God is both God of the Jews and Gentiles as a counterargument against a position.

On the other hand, if “works of the law” are the things that mark out “those of the law” then it all make perfect sense. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from being a Jew,” or “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from circumcision,” both make perfect sense.

And it also makes sense of the promise Paul keeps mentioning.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is those of the law who are [exclusively] to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the one of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations” (Romans 4.13-17a; emphasis added).

Traditionally, in the name of a theory about what it means that the law brings wrath, people have read the entire argument as one of obedience as opposed to grace. But while Paul has much to say about the law, and makes a point about it here, his argument regarding the promise is not a theory of promised gifts versus earned wages, but rather the nature of what was promised (“the world [kosmos],” “many nations”) versus the Law which was tied to one nation, Israel. Those who say that Israel’s status is permanant are restricting the grace of God to a few and denying the promise to all who believe.