Romans 14:1-13: The Use of Christian Liberty, Part One

Christians have seemingly always bickered over what is right and what is wrong in areas where the Bible has not spoken, and it will probably always be that way. I can think of a number of examples in my lifetime that seemed to be big deals, and have changed over time. On the other hand, there are some things that still seem to persist, and probably will always persist as areas of contention. Other things, seem to be issues here in the States, that are not even considered issues overseas, particularly in Europe. Arguing over them and trying to prove that they are right or wrong are seldom fruitful. In most cases, both sides are dead-set in their ways and are inflexible in hearing the other side’s opinion, or in some cases, biblical proof. So what are we to do about these topics? Are we to allow it to divide us? Are we to set rules against one another so that no one is offended? Romans 14 gives us a great set of guidelines in dealing with the issue of loving one another in areas of disagreement. Paul, the great Apostle, addresses issues of sin in two different groups- the strong, and the weak. Let’s dive in. (I also apologize for the rather poor English in some of the translations, they’re my own translations from the Greek and are kind of choppy since I was trying to be very literal.)

(vs 1-2) But the weak in the faith, accept these ones- not for passing judgment on their doubting thoughts. The one, indeed, who has faith, he may eat anything, but the weak one eats herbs.

Straight away we can see the division of the two groups by Paul. The passage is directed at the strong, and they are told to “accept” the weak. It makes sense that this charge would be given to the strong- after all, they’re strong! As Uncle Ben always told Peter Parker, “With great strength comes great responsibility.” The strong are charged with care for the weak. Within the context, the strong are defined as those who understand the parameters of Christian liberty. These are people who are strong enough to partake in a plethora of activities, because of their greater knowledge in understanding that in amoral areas (areas that are not intrinsically right or wrong), there is nothing that is in itself unclean.

The weaker, in contrast, are those who either live a life governed by rules, or at the least, in the areas addressed- food and wine- have set up rules for themselves to abstain from partaking. To those (especially in modern culture) that abstain from such practices, this term may seem condescending, and downright rude- but Paul adds something about their weakness important to this issue. What makes them weak? Is it simply that they abstain? No, look at the wording- they are weak in the faith. Notice that the word the is present. It is not weak in faith, as if they are missing a measure of quantity of faith; instead, they are actually weak in THE faith, meaning that their actual Christianity is somehow weaker due to their abstinence. John MacArthur says, “He was speaking of believers… who are weak in their understanding of and living out their true faith in Jesus Christ.” This does not mean that Paul is only addressing immature Christians, it means that those that abstain from these activities are actually missing something in their knowledge of the Gospel. There are some commentators who see in verse 2 that the strong have faith, but there is no corresponding mention of faith for the weak, meaning that the weak may not be practicing faith in the issues at hand.

1 Cor 8:6-7 fleshes this out a bit.

…yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Those that are weak are so because they (in some way) lack the knowledge that there is one God and one Lord. You see, there are no such things as idols (1 Cor 8:6), so eating meat sacrificed to an idol is meaningless, because the idol doesn’t actually exist. Nonetheless, there were people that abstained because they were afraid of honoring a foreign god by eating the food sacrificed to it. They missed the point- there is only one God, therefore, the meat is just that- meat. They are weak in the faith because they are somehow lacking in their understanding of who God is. Grant Osbourne says, “…they had not understood that their faith (i.e., their relationship to God in Christ) meant complete freedom from all legalistic requirements… by faith, Paul meant that they believed that they had to follow these practices in order to walk with Christ properly…” Such a thing is contrary to a free life, a life that has been ransomed by Christ.

Paul’s charge to the strong is that they are to accept the weak, but not for passing judgment. This word judgment is going to come up a few times in this chapter, and is used in a variety of ways. Paul was clever with his language, and liked to repeat certain words or parts of words to illustrate points, and that’s what he’s doing here. In this case, he’s telling the strong Christians not to only tolerate the weaker brothers so that they can look down on them, to puff themselves up. The point of them being there is not so that we can look at ourselves (remember Paul regarded himself as one of the strong) and think, “Oh, I remember when I was like that. I’m sooooooo much better now. Pity on them.” (Actually, I wanted to type Pity the fool…) The weaker brother is as much a part of the body as we are, and is equal in the eyes of God. We are to treat them as fellow brothers, holding them up in their weakness, and not grieving them.

(vs 3-4) The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Regard with contempt is the word exoutheneo, and has the idea of “regarding as worthless.” This means that the strong are not to look at the weak with the mindset that we are somehow better than they. In these verses though, the greater chastisement is given to the weaker brother, and Paul continues with the thought that they are somehow lacking in their understanding of the faith by teaching about judging the stronger in relation to our shared status as elected by God. Those who partake in what the weak condemn have not ruled themselves out of service, or proven themselves unusable, for God has accepted him. I think there exists within legalistic (both greater and lesser) circles, the idea that Christians that partake in certain activities such as listening to secular music, watching R-rated movies, drinking alcohol, etc., will somehow have a lesser testimony for Christ as long as they partake of those things. Instead, what Paul says in essence is mind your own business. Yes, you may disagree with what someone else does, but do not judge him for it, he is answerable not to you, but only to his Lord- a Lord that both you and him alike share. This goes for placing laws on one another, as often happens within Churches. This could take shape in a number of ways, from requiring church staff to abstain from certain activities to requiring church membership to wear ties and coats to services. John MacArthur says once again, “It is also sinful, however to try to impose our personal convictions on others, because, in doing so, we are tempting them to go against their own consciences.” You see, for the weak to judge the strong by condemning them, and then acting on it by forbidding them from what their conscience does not condemn, is to potentially cause them to sin by placing a means of temptation before them. If you had listened to secular music your whole life, and were forbidden to do so because you got a job at a church that forbid it for staff members, it would be a sin for you to listen to that music as long as you are under their authority. The problem is, there is nothing wrong with listening to secular music per se, so you may be tempted to turn on some music while no one was around, like in your house or car. Maybe, just maybe, as you were flipping through stations you heard a song you once liked and paused to listen a bit. Would that not be sin? You see, for the weak to place rules on the strong is to put a cause of sin before them, and to do so needlessly. Paul is saying that these amoral areas are neither right nor wrong, their “rightness” and “wrongness” are solely determined by the conscience of the one partaking, and it should be left up to them to make that decision for themselves.

(vs 5-6) One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who is observing the day,  he is observing it for the Lord; and the one who is eating, for the Lord he eats, for he gives thanks to God; the one who does not eating for the Lord he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God.

Everyone has their own reasons for doing what they do. Those that are justified in doing those things are justified because they do them out of an understanding that in doing so they are exercising the freedom they have in being finally justified by God on account of the meritorious work of Christ on the cross. They no longer have a need to work for their merit, and therefore their acts are free. In this, they are able to glorify God. On the flip side, those that withhold from partaking in whatever they choose to abstain from, do so from a desire to honor God by not partaking in something that they consider to be wrong. In both cases, what is done is done to the glory of God. Eating or not eating is therefore irrelevant. Whether you abstain or not makes no difference. We are to accept each other equally and rejoice in the freedom to either partake or abstain. “That is, both parties are actuated by religious motives in what they do; they regulate their conduct by a regard to the will of God, and therefore, although some, from weakness or ignorance, may err as to the rule of duty, they are not to be despised or cast out as evil… The Lord is he who died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead. It is to him the believer is responsible, as to the Lord of his inner life.” (Charles Hodge)

(vs 7-12) For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

This is a restatement of the previous verses, the word for gives that away. All Christians live their lives for the Lord. Everything we do is to be used to glorify him, both in life and death. So, both groups do what they do in service to God and the other group is not to condemn nor judge them for their actions. The actions of our brethren should not give us cause for concern simply because our consciences disagree. Every man will stand before God, and those that are elect will be asked to answer for the time that was given to them.

(v13) No longer shall we therefore judge each other, but this you all decide, rather, not to set a stumbling block or a trap before a brother.

This is probably the most important and most controversial verse in this chapter, followed closely by v21. Again, sorry the wording is kinda rough, its my own translation from the Greek, and I was trying to be as literal as possible. Since this verse is important, let’s split it up.

No longer shall we. Paul is addressing both groups in this passage, and using the first person plural (we), he includes himself. Often with this verse, commentators apply this verse primarily to the stronger brother, saying that his liberality will cause another to stumble, and therefore he should give it up. On the contrary, this verse goes both ways; not only to the stronger, but to the weaker also.

Therefore. This verse ties to what was said before, particularly in verses 5-12.

Judge each other. Here’s that word judge again. Important to this verse, since we’re dealing with people “sizing each other up” spiritually. Judging can have a plethora of uses, and this verse encompasses nearly all forms. Judging can be “casting judgment upon,” as in considering someone a sinner based on his actions. There are many Christians, particularly in the issue of alcohol, who believe that no true Christian would ever drink a drop. There is also “judgmentalism.” Judgmentalism has more to do with seeing oneself as superior to another due to a certain introspective pietism. “I don’t do what you do, and that makes me better (and “better” can also mean a lot of different things; more equipped for ministry, better suited to administration, more holy, etc.) than you.” This is legalism to a T. This is more often the case, for both groups. For the stronger, it is easy to be puffed up with pride and arrogance, and see oneself as better for having a greater understanding of the truth; for the weaker, it is usually that since they have piety to abstain, they are somehow in the possession of a greater holiness, or cleanliness, or are more suited to the needs of ministry. In either case, it is simply not true. 1 Cor 8:8 States this plainly:

But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

In essence, as we said before, mind your own business. That goes for both groups. What our brothers and sisters do or don’t do is their own concern, not ours. We shouldn’t be going sticking our noses in each other’s business for the purpose of judging them. Instead, if all things were the way they are supposed to be, I should be able to stand next to my abstaining brother with my glass in hand and pipe in mouth, both of us rejoicing in the glory of our Saviour, without a care for the actions of the other.

But this you all decide, rather. As opposed to the previous, which was in the first person plural (we), this is in the second person plural (you all). It is also imperative. Paul is giving his audience a direct command. On top of that, it is in the aorist tense. Usually, when talking about the aorist tense, its referred to as the “past completed” tense, as in Rom 8:30, where the entire “golden chain” is in the aorist tense, signifying that all parts have already been completed by God, including our glorification. In this case, the verb is not past tense per se, but is “punctilliar.” That means that it is a one-point-in-time occurrence that is completed at that point. So when you keep that in mind alongside with the imperative, Paul is telling the audience this is something they need to do immediately; they need to understand this; make up their mind, and get on with it. That said, it should be a fairly simple concept that can be decided rather quickly.

Not to set a stumbling block. To set has no significant meaning, it simply means “to place.”  Stumbling block is the Greek word proskomma and literally means “striking against,” and carries the idea of the foot actually striking a stone, causing them to fall. In this case, it is to be taken metaphorically as an occasion for sin. The “stumbling” is that of falling into sin. It should be taken as causing one Spiritual injury, not simply offending the person, but actually causing them to take part in a sin that somehow interrupts fellowship with Christ (cf. v23).

A trap. Is the Greek word skandalon, and according to Marvin Mayer, has the idea of  of “a stick in a trap that had bait on it.” John Constable says that the “Greek word translated "stumbling block" (NASB) or "obstacle" (NIV; skandalon) describes a snare used to catch an animal or victim as it walks by (cf. Matt 16:23; 1 Cor. 8:13).” The two words taken together form what is called a hendiadys, meaning that the two words are put together to form a singular meaning. Charles Hodge says, “The words (πρόσκομμα and σκάνδαλον) rendered a stumbling-block and an occasion to fall, do not differ in their meaning; the latter is simply exegetical of the former,” and in similar fashion Grant Osbourne says, “The two words are virtually synonymous.”

From all this information, we should understand the passage as being a direct command from the Apostle Paul to both groups, commanding them to not be a cause of sin to members of the other group. For the strong, this means that they should not use their liberty in such a way that the weak would do the same things that they do even though they consider it wrong. Verse 23 says,

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

So, for the strong, they should not be doing their business in a way that entices the weak, like a baited trap, so that they become ensnared in sin. 1 Cor 8:10 illustrates this:

For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

This ties in directly to Romans 14:13 in that the very same term stumbling block is used in the previous verse, 8:9:

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

So, from the cross reference in 1 Cor 8:9-10, I believe it can be proved that to place a stumbling block before the weak means specifically to entice someone who disagrees with what the strong is taking part in, to take part in themselves. So, for instance with the case of alcohol, it is not wrong for a Christian to simply drink alcohol, whether at home or in a restaurant. What is wrong is to drink it knowing that a weaker brother is present, and to do so in a way that entices them to come join you. That would be sin, and is what Paul is commanding against.

On the other hand, the weak are not to place a stumbling block before the strong, by forbidding them from doing what their conscience has deemed to be good for them. There is a principle in Rom 7:7 that can be applied here:

…I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”

The idea here is that a person may practice something knowingly, and not have anything wrong with it and thus continue practicing it without any damage to their conscience, but once a law is placed before them barring them from said activity then they are responsible for upholding that law. So, when the weaker places a law against an activity pertaining to conscience before the stronger brother and holds him to it, he is placing a stumbling block before his brother by making what was once not unclean to be unclean (v14). Following from that idea, 7:8 reads,

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

So, not only does law make what was once not sin to be sin, but it also produces a desire to do what is commanded against. So what this says about the placing of stumbling blocks before the stronger brethren is that when a law is placed before them, it has the tendency, as a law, to produce a desire to break it. Therefore, I believe the principle is here, in referring to the weaker brother, that they are not to hold the stronger brethren accountable to their weaker conscience, as it tempts the stronger brother to break a law that they personally don’t believe exists, or simply don’t agree with. As with the case of the stronger brother, this is a sin for the weaker brother, and Paul commands against it.

There’s also an application here as to how the two words proskomma and skandalon relate to our Saviour, as the Apostle Peter says in 1 Peter 2:8,

“A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

The words stone of stumbling are the Greek words lithos proskommatos. Look familiar? It should, along with the next phrase rock of offense, which are the Greek words petra skandalou. They are the same words used by Paul (although in different cases/tenses). The obvious idea used here by Peter is that when Christ is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, those that stumble over him fall away eternally. While that may not be Paul’s idea contextually, it does convey the idea of falling into a sin that they may not ever get out of. Such is the purpose of a trap or snare. When you catch something in a trap, you don’t do so to let it go. The trap is there with the intended purpose of killing the prey. So should we understand it here and with Paul. A proskomma and skandalon that is placed before a brother is something that causes them to sin in a way that is of the most serious nature, and is not merely something that is “offensive.”

With that I’ll end the first half. There’s still a second half to the chapter which applies what was said in the first half, and I’ll get to that as I have time. Hope this was helpful, and as usual, if you have questions, leave them in the comments section and I’ll answer them as best I can!

In Him,

Mike

1 Tim 2:4

"...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

A little late night rant. Presidential race just got wrapped up, Obama wins. This is the first passage that comes to mind.

Generally, you only hear this verse coming from some kind of altar call from an Arminian preacher teaching that God's desire is for every single person on the planet and throughout history to be saved. Not so. Let's look at the rest of the context.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 We can see from the context that the desire on God's behalf is not that every person will be saved, but instead that all kinds of men be saved- here's the part that's important- even the kings and rulers who oppress you.

Right now we're facing a moral crisis in America. What Paul defines as a "giving over" to sin in the area of homosexuality is happening as we speak. And what's more, what Paul said later about others "giving hearty approval" is also the norm. The moral compass is so far off in this country. I actually just had to take a break from typing to argue with someone over the definition of life. When a country can't define what marriage is based on the natural function of the body, or the definition of life based on just the dumbest common sense, then its time we start getting off our behinds and becoming the Christians that the Apostles desired us to be.

Hard times are coming. Times are coming where we will simply no longer be tolerated. And yet despite that, Paul urges Timothy to pray for our rulers, as He has the power to save even those that are our enemies. What we are going through right now is of no comparison to the trials experienced by the early Church. We have yet to face death for our belief in this country. We have yet to worry about exile. We do not have secret meetings in homes. We live a good life, worshiping freely.

Enjoy that freedom, but do not become complacent. Give thanks to God for the graces he has bestowed upon us, and that when the tide comes, he will be merciful and not allow us to be swept up with it.



Grace and peace in the next 4 years,

Mike

Spurgeon on the Grace in having a Sovereign God

Beloved English pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon once wrote this:

There is no attribute of God more comforting to His children than the doctrine of the Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation- the kingship of God over all the works of His own hands- the throne of God, and His right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except upon His throne. They will allow Him to be in His workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow His bounties. They will allow Him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of Heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and His right to do as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love. They love Him anywhere better than they do when He sits with His scepter in His hand and His crown upon His head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon His throne whom we trust.

Yes we do. The God of the Catholics, the Arminians, and the Open Theists is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is not one who bows to the will of another. He is the one reigning on the throne, who will return one day in triumph, with his robe dipped in blood, eyes aflame, and a sword protruding from his mouth, making war upon all those who deny him. It is this God who we trust, the God who is Jesus Christ, who defends his holiness by punishing all that sets itself against him. He is sovereign in all his ways, and it is for this reason that we say that we can trust him. With Jude we can reply fully and in earnest,

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. 

Charis kai airene,

Mike

Romans 8:1 Greek Exegetical Outline

This probably won't be of much use to any of you, but if you're curious about a good format to do exegetical outlines, here's an example. First, mark any important words, these will be the words you will work with. In this particular verse, almost all the words are useful for a solid exposition of the verse. Next, list the part of speech for each particular word. After that, list entries from various lexical and dictionary sources. After that, list any useful words from commentaries.

Pretty simple. This allows you to have a good outline starting from the original language and will allow you to familiarize yourself with each word so that as you begin to prepare a message, you will already be familiar with the skeleton of the verse in the original language.

Ou˙de/n a¡ra nu√n kata÷krima toi√ß e˙n Cristwø√ ∆Ihsou√

ou˙de/n

1. Adj., Nom., Sing., Neut.
2. Lexicons
1. From ou˙de and ei™ß
2. pronoun No one, nothing, not any, no* (TDNT, L&S)
3. adj No (BAG)
3. Comments
1. “ou¡de÷n kata÷krima, does not mean nihil damnatione dignum (nothing worthy of condemnation,) as Erasmus and many others render it, but  there is no condemnation.” (Hodge)
2. “emphatic…(ouden, “not one”)” (Moo)

a¡ra

1.     Particle

2.     Lexicons

a.     Illative particle therefore (Strong)

b.     Inferential (Illative) particle so, then, consequently, you see (BAG)

c.     Attic usage functions like ou™n –less strongly; then, therefore (L&S)

3.     Comments

a.     “…Therefore indicates that what follows is an inference…” (Hodge)

b.     “The combination a¡ra nu√n… is an emphatic on, marking what follows as a significant summing up.” (Moo)

nu√n

1.     Particle (Strong); adv. (BAG)

2.     Lexicons

a.     Adverb of time now; Lit., of time- now, at the present time, of the immediate present, designating both a point of time as well as its extent. (BAG)

b.     Now at this very time (L&S)

c.     Time, now, the present (Strong)

3.     Comments

a.     “The ‘now,’ as in 3:21; 5:9; 6:19,22; 7:6, alludes to the new era of salvation history inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection.” (Moo)

b.     “The emphasis on now returns to the idea of the two epochs in salvation-history. The now-ness of this new age of salvation (cf. 3:26; 5:9, 11; 6:19,21) means that the condemnation of the old era is no longer.” (Osbourne)

c.     “There is, therefore, now, i.e., under these circumstances, viz., the circumstances set forth in the previous part of the epistle. (Hodge)

kata÷krima

1.     noun

a.     from katakri/nw, v., to give judgment against (Strong)

                                                        i.     from kata/, prep., according to (Strong)

                                                      ii.     and kri/nw, v., to judge, decide (Strong)

2.     Lexicons

a.     penalty, condemnation (Strong)

b.     prob. Not ‘condemnation’, but the punishment following sentence, punishment, doom.” ou˙de«n k. toi√ß e˙n Cristw√ ˙Ihsou√ there is no doom for those who are in Christ Jesus

c.     judgment (L&S)

3.     Comments

a.     “The word katakrima means ‘probably not “condemnation”, but the punishment following sentence’ (Arndt-Gingrich)- in other words, ‘penal servitude’. (Bruce)

b.     “condemnation resulting from sin” (Osbourne)

c.     “[quotes BAG, Bruce]…But Paul does not appear to use the word so narrowly, for in 5:16 and 18 katakrima is used as the antithesis to justification to sum up the penal effects of Adam’s disobedience. Is the scope of the word even broader than this, extending beyond the penalty of sin to the power of sin? Many think so and argue that 8:1 announces the breaking of sin’s dominion in all its aspects… Therefore, like “death,” a parallel term (cf. 5:16 and 17; 5:18 and 21; and 8:1 and 6), katakrima designates the state of lostness, of estrangement from God, the state in which all are born and in which, unless Christ be embraced by faith, all will die and spend eternity.” (Moo)

toiç

            1. Def. Art., Dat., Pl., Masc.

e˙n Cristwø√ ∆Ihsou√

1.     prep. followed by prop. n.

2.     Comments

a.     “…united with him in his death and resurrection” (Osbourne)

b.     “Paul’s description of the new order into which men and women are introduced by faith in Christ.” (Bruce)

c.     “1. They are in him federally, as all men were in Adam…2. They are in him vitally, as the branch is in the vine…; or, as the head and members of the body are in vital union… .” (Hodge)

d.     “Those who are in Adam experience all the liabilities of being descended from him. Similarly, those in Christ experience all the blessings that accrue to those who belong to God.” (Schreiner)

Key:

BAG- Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, “A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament.”

L&S- Liddell and Scott, “An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.”

Strong- Strong’s Accordance

Osbourne, Grant, “Romans: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series.”

Bruce, F.F, “Romans: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.”

Schreiner, Thomas, “Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, A Pauline Theology.”

Hodge, Charles, “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.”

Moo, Douglas, “Romans 1-8: The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary.”

Rachel Held Evans on the Today Show: An Explanation

So RHE has a new book out, called A Year of Biblical Womanhood. Now, off the bat, I haven't read it, and I won't. I can get the gist of it from listening to her explain her point, and respond to the overall theme though. It is certainly a familiar theme, its something that I've answered before, but we'll go through it again since this is a completely different context. Here is Evans' appearance on "The Today Show."

The interviewer begins the interview asking the audience, "What kind of life does the Bible want you to live?" The premise behind Evans' book is that she spent a year practicing what she believes the Bible has said that Christian (she defines herself as Evangelical, whatever that means) women are to live like. One question arises right at the start: if this truly is Biblical womanhood, why doesn't any Christian woman anywhere do what she did, even in part? There has to be an answer. Who does she have in mind, the Amish? They're probably the only people who live even remotely like the way Evans has portrayed the Biblical life. But, the Amish are not your typical, run-of-the-mill Christian. So what kind of Biblical Womanhood is she confronting?

Evans states that her book is a response to the uprise of Christian books condoning a Biblical lifestyle for women. Two more things here. First, if her version of "Biblical Womanhood" is so much different that these other authors' versions, then has she even read these other authors, and read them well enough to understand what it is they are promoting? Second, it is readily apparent that her response to "Biblical Womanhood" is that "you can't do it," or at the very least, "this is very silly." Either way, she's mocking the Bible. She's mocking Christians, and she's mocking Christian history- and she's doing it in front of a primarily non-Christian audience. Talk about arming the enemy. Even though she says she doesn't like reducing the Bible to an "adjective," she certainly is giving non-Christians extra ammo to use in their mockery of Christians, and particularly, the Bible.

The biggest, most glaring issue here is her hermeneutic with which she reads the Bible. As I said above, I've tackled the topic of the Law before, but its time to rehash. Why do I believe that how she portrays "Biblical Womanhood" is incorrect? Its because she ignores the context of what she's reading. She takes Old Testament Law and puts it on par with New Testament Grace.

The Law of Moses is divided into three parts: the Moral Law, the Priestly Law, and the Purity Law. There is no clear division within the whole of the Mosaic Law, but these three headings make up for the whole of the Law.

The Moral Laws pertain to the parts of the Mosaic Law that are moralistic in nature. They are rooted in the idea of clearly defined right-and-wrong, based on the immutable goodness of God's nature. Things like not committing incest, or making sure to revere one's parents, or to "Be holy as I am holy." These are things rooted in morals.

The Priestly Laws pertain to the Levites and the Temple practices. How to offer a sacrifice, on what days, the types of offerings permitted, so on and so forth. Jesus' atonement was final, and this part of the Law was fulfilled. Heb 6:6 speaks of Christian Jews returning to the temple system, and that it is a re-crucifying of Christ, because since Jesus was the atonement for all sins, we no longer need to sacrifice.

The Purity Laws cover the laws that deal with the separation of Israel. The Israelites lived amongst many different people groups. God gave them specific laws to show that they were separate. Odd things like not shaving the corners of the beard, eating shellfish, not mixing fabrics, or not mixing crops. These were all pictures of the separation of Israel to God, that he had chosen them out of the other nations and had consecrated them to him. We are not Israelites, therefore these laws do not pertain to us. They were tied to the land and given to a specific people. On top of that, we are under grace. We no longer have need of laws, for as Paul said, "...all things are lawful for me..." Grace has done away with the need to work. Grace allows that we are able to serve God and Christ according to how we are led by the Spirit, and we are not tied down to a rulebook.

What we have with RHE is a refusal to acknowledge any kind of context given in Scripture. I mean, its not too difficult to look at how many times within the two statements of the Mosaic Law that God specifically says, "Say this to the sons of Israel..." God is obviously only addressing a certain people group, and Christ's atonement sets that in stone. We are not bound to Law. That is the reason I do not expect my wife to go live in the shed once a month. She is free from that, thankfully.

Another thing I saw was her use of Proverbs. For instance, her use of the Prov 25:24,

It is better to live in a corner of the roof, than in a house shared with a contentious woman. 

Here is something people don't usually know, and this word may throw you off a bit: Gnomic. No, it has nothing to do with garden ornaments or short friendly woodland people with pointy hats. Gnomic truth is the contrast of Absolute truth. Proverbs is a book of gnomic truths. These are general truths, not commands, not laws, not requirements. These are things that would be true, given certain circumstances, or according to a certain prerogative. That is why we can have completely contradicting Proverbs! Look at this:

Prov 26:4- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. 

Prov 26:5- Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.

These two passages, right next to each other, contradict one another when taken literally. That's because they are not Absolute truths. They aren't true in every one of life's situations. There are times when one is true, and there is a time when the other is true. That is the essence of a gnomic truth; its truth lies in principle. Another example is of when I once dated a girl and her dad (after one freaking date...yikes!) told me I couldn't marry his daughter until I graduated college because Proverbs 24:27 says:

Prepare your work outside, and make it ready for yourself in the field; afterwards, then, build your house.  

He wanted to hold me to it. Now, there's nothing wrong with the verse itself, nothing silly or foolish about it at all. Its a good principle. Its better to wait to build a household until you've got your ducks in a row. But, its not a law, its not a rule, and its not something that may be applicable in 100% of situations. Think about how many pastors you know that got married while they were either still in college or at Seminary. A lot. The work on their farm wasn't done yet; yet they began to build their house anyway. That's the point behind a principle, a gnomic truth. It's not absolute.



So, what we can see from RHE's monthly camping out in her front yard due to "Lady's Week" is that she has no understanding of how the Old Testament works. On top of that, she is clearly displaying a lack of knowledge when it comes to what Christ's work on the cross was really all about, and what it did for us in freeing us from law. What does it mean to be under Grace, free from the yoke of bondage? It means that we are not held to these things. Unfortunately, they never reviewed her take on New Testament passages, but since I don't own the book, this isn't a book review. I'm reviewing what was said on national television.

So my encouragement to women is that there really is a Biblical womanhood that does not require you to live outside for a week every month. More importantly, TRUE Biblical womanhood says that you don't have to! To live according to the Bible means upholding the whole book as it defines itself. Christ fulfilled the law (Rom 8:2). We are free from dead works (Heb 9:14). Therefore, we are no longer bound to the yoke of the Law, but are free in Christ to live unto good works.


Va con Dios,

Mike

The Importance of Paul

A trend I've been seeing lately is people becoming more fed up with the great Apostle Paul, some to the point of abandoning him altogether. Islamists hold that Paul changed Christianity, as do some atheist and agnostic scholars, and obviously homosexual non-Christians abhor him. Most of what I've been seeing though is an increasing view of Paul's teachings as being either totally or somewhat incompatible with what the red letters say, and its coming from the general populace of Christians. This view really sets in stone my belief that Christians either don't know anything about Christian history, or simply don't think through the consequences of changing what has been set in stone for nearly 2000 years. As I've stated in a few places, this is the product of a Christianity that is now willing to question everything with a skeptical eye.

I question everything, let me make that clear- but I do it in search of knowledge, not due to skepticism. If you've been following my blog articles at all, you'll know that I'm not exactly supportive of a "blind faith" version of what "faith" is. My great hope and desire is that all Christians become increasingly literate in Christianity, and more aware of why we believe what we do. Asking questions is part of that. There is however, a difference between asking the questions "Why is that there," "Why do we believe that," and "How am I supposed to accept this?" The first two question with an intellectual curiosity, a desire to know. The third question asks with a self-centered skepticism that puts the focus on the person's own worldview, rather than viewing Scripture as the revealed Word of God, and accepting any answer regardless of the culture clash. Some things are difficult, no doubt. To be sure though, there is nothing in Scripture that is worth "throwing out" based on its incompatibility with the culture around me. Its all in there for a reason.

The Apostle Paul's teachings fall right in the center of this. His views on a patriarchal family, the fact that homosexuality is a sin, and that women are not allowed to teach men have all been viewed negatively by various groups, and its gotten to the point that people aren't just ignoring his individual teachings- they're willing to throw out Paul altogether. The general consensus about Paul among his enemies is that he and his theology are merely the product of his Pharisaical upbringing and his Hellenistic, Second Temple Jewish worldview. Essentially, Paul's teaching are all chalked up to the culture he grew up in, and have no relevance to Christianity today.

Rachel Held Evans, a voice within the Emergent movement who has been working her way up the "Christians You Need to Know" ladder, voices this opinion in her blog:

 As a woman, I’ve been nursing a secret grudge against the Apostle Paul for about eight years

As if we're supposed to empathize with her because she's pointing out that its a woman thing. The bold print is her own, amongst a list of things that are not in bold, so she's emphasizing this point about herself. She simply does not want to accept what Paul says. That's all there is to it. Now if you're familiar with Evans' views, and especially her interpretive hermeneutic (I cringe calling it that), you'll know she's not a Biblical scholar, and she's definitely not a theologian of any sort (in her new book, she refers to Islam as "the Nation of Islam," which is the Farrakhan movement...). So, how much of what we're about to read has she really thought about? Not much. The hermeneutic is emotion. Its all about feeling and responding according to our culture.

There are some things that I think people haven't thought about with Paul. Some things that Christians find central to defining what Christianity is that we would actually lose by negating Paul. But maybe I'm wrong- maybe people like Rachel Held Evans have thought through these things. Maybe people are willing to throw out Paul because they simply don't care. What a scary thought. Either way, so that you might be informed- Christian- here are some reasons to hold on to our beloved Apostle.

Canonicity

"Canonicity" is a big word for saying "what books we think are inspired." For example, the six Star Wars movies are considered "Star Wars canon." The comic books however, are not. They contain things either not endorsed by George Lucas or things that are inherently contradictory to the six movies. It goes the same with Scripture. We have a set of writings that we consider to be absolute in their necessity to what it is we believe.

The problem is, I think a lot of people are under the impression that the only reason we have these books is because a group of people got together and chose them for one reason or another. That's not the case- the group of books is actually entirely accidental, more or less (from our historical perspective of course; Spiritual from our Christian mindset). There was no ecumenical council that decided everything. Early Christians were just smart enough to start collecting writings from Church leaders that they recognized were of a different nature. This is reflected in the various early Papyrus and Codices that we have. Nowhere do we have a set of the complete New Testament before around 300AD. But, we do have various groupings of the different books that we call the NT. That means that there were Christians living in different areas that had collected different sets of manuscripts and kept them together, and that there was overlap within the groups until someone noticed that there were a set of documents that were particular to all the different Christian populations, and decided to put all of them together. Whoever this was though, certainly wasn't of any authoritative sort that decided for the church what was to be canon and what wasn't.

The reason that we have the books we do is because they all work together, in a very weird and oddly coincidental sort of way. When you remove one, or a few, you start affecting all the rest, and with as developed as Christian theology is today, removing one or a few would be detrimental to what we have concluded up to this point.

All this said, let us look at Paul. Paul was the most prolific of the NT writers. Of the twenty seven books of the NT, Paul wrote either 13 or 14, depending on who wrote Hebrews. Going with 13 books, that means that Paul wrote 48% of the NT. His importance within Christian theology well displayed thus.

Paul is also mentioned in the Book of Acts and is depicted as having been chosen by Christ Himself through a vision, and thus commissioned as the Apostle that replaced Judas Iscariot. Of the 28 chapters of Acts, 19 focus on Paul.

The Apostle Peter groups Paul's letters in with the rest of the Scriptures (graphas- "writings") in 2 Pet 3:16. Peter regards Paul as "our beloved brother" (2 Pet 3:15), and also gives the warning that people will try to distort what he says, "to their own destruction."

So what affect does removing Paul from our Christian canon have on the New Testament? Here's a list of some important points, in no particular order of importance:

1) We lose the Pastoral epistles- 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Without these, we have virtually no instruction on how churches are to be run. We have no rules concerning the choosing of pastors, elders, or deacons. We have no rules or guidelines concerning their lifestyles, their beliefs, their status as Christians, or their position of authority within the church. We basically lose the structure of Church.

2) We lose the writings of Luke- Luke and Acts. If Paul was a false apostle, and at odds with Christ's teachings, we definitely lose Acts. Not only would it nullify his choosing by Christ on the road to Damascus, but it would make Luke a liar, or at least Luke's sources untrustworthy, and therefore we cannot hold either work as being "infallible." We would have to begin to question the veracity of both books and the trustworthiness of Luke himself.

3) We lose Peter- Acts, 1, 2 Peter. If Peter endorsed Paul and held Paul's writings up with other Scripture, which would include the Gospels, we would also have to question Peter's doctrinal authority. We know from Galatians that Paul, on at least one occasion, stood up to Peter- so perhaps Peter was swayed by Paul's beliefs and conformed to the "Pauline Brand" of Christianity. At the very least, we would have to deny 2 Peter based on his outright approval of Paul. From the other perspective, this is the perfect alibi for the canonicity of Paul. Jesus definitely commissioned Peter, and Peter in turn, approves of Paul and regards his writings as equal with other Scripture. So... yeah.

4) We lose historical information about the spread of Christianity and the trials of Christianity based on any books that are removed above. Paul's missionary trips, his jailing, Peter's remarkable release from prison at the hands of angels, the story of Annanias and Saphira, and so many others.

5) We lose the book of Romans. Romans is widely regarded as the single greatest and most important book in all of the Bible. Without it, we lose an infinite amount of Christian apologetics (ever heard of the "Romans Road?" or used it?). We also lose the single most logical book dealing with Salvation. Nearly the entire book is a single, rolling argument for the necessity of a faith-without-works-based salvation. I could go on and on about the importance of this book.

In all, to remove Paul from Scripture would wreak havoc on the Bible itself. A good portion of Scripture would be removed. Other books and at least one other Apostle would be called into question, and likely also removed.

Doctrine and Theology

This is the big one. There is so much at stake by removing Paul from canon that one cannot fathom that there would really be anything left to what we regard as Christianity, especially Protestantism. There are an infinite number of doctrines that hinge on Paul's writings. Paul, almost across the board, is regarded to be the highest of every Christian theologian that history has ever produced. Outside of Catholicism, he is regarded to be the greatest of the Apostles. His importance as a teacher and a guide is limitless. Here are some things to think about in losing him:

1) We lose our archetype of the proper Christian walk. Many, including myself, hold him to the height that he is the pinnacle of what the Christian life is to be. Let's remember, Christ wasn't a Christian. While we are commanded to live as He did, we also have to be real and recognize that Christ is God, and therefore to live as he did is an impossibility. He didn't have a sin nature. But to live as one who had the struggle of a sin nature is entirely possible. Of all the Apostles, only Paul gave the command to follow his own example (1 Cor 11:1, Gal 4:12). It is possible to experience victory within the Christian walk- living with Christ as our perfection, and Paul as our witness, we are able to find true hope in life.

2) As stated above, we lose the Book of Romans. There are so many things written there, I would be hard pressed to list every one, and would fail trying. Not every one of these is solely found in Romans, but there are many things in Romans that are stated so plainly that without them, orthodox Protestantism would be severely at a disadvantage in its theological structuring. Within Romans, there are some clear-cut things that we would certainly lose an argument for, in chronological order:

• Not just the notion that men are guilty of sin, but that all men are guilty of sin, both Jew and Gentile, from all history. The natural inclination of all men is to have sufficient knowledge of God, and reject him.
• The "Wages" argument for salvation by grace alone. Salvation cannot be by works because then God would "owe" us Salvation.
• We would lose the only absolute statement on the doctrine of Salvation by grace alone apart from works, Romans 3:28. The removal of this statement gives Roman Catholics much more ground in their doctrine due to James 2:24, which is an exact opposite statement, and without Romans 3:28, it would be at best difficult (though not impossible) to establish a grace-alone doctrine in light of James' words.
• That the Law, in its essence, was good, and should not be looked at as evil or an enemy in any way.
• Justification by Faith.
• Imputation of Righteousness to believers is a parallel to the imputation of Adam's sin to humanity.
• We have been crucified with Christ and no longer are under the yoke of sin.
• There is no final condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
• The Holy Spirit makes up for our inability to pray.
• That "all things work together for good"- that there is purpose in all of life's situations.
• Two of the most important passages on predestination/election- Romans 8:29-30 and 9:6-24.
• That Christians cannot be separated from the special love given to them by Christ.
• That God chooses some unto Salvation and passes over others, and does so to make his name great.
• The most clear presentation of the entirety of the Gospel- Romans 10:9-10.
• That the "wild branches" will be reunited with the "natural branches".
• The argument of weaker brothers vs stronger brothers in regards to areas of conscience.

And that's not even complete, not to mention that its only one book.

3) We lose many of the most important passages on our doctrines of the deity of Christ, two of the most important being the "Kenosis" of Philippians 2:6-7, and Colossians 1:15. Jesus existed in the morphe of God, the exact class and likeness of Deity, and emptied himself upon taking on flesh. Jesus was also the prototokos- the "firstborn" of all creation, contrasted with the "first created" (which is a different word- protoktistos) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

4) Spiritual gifts. Paul is the most long-winded of the NT authors on the subject of the out-workings of the Spirit, which makes up the majority of what we know about the Spirit. Unlike the Father and the Son, our understanding of the Spirit is largely formed by what we know of what he does through us. Without it, we don't really know much about him. Romans 8 is considered the most important chapter on the Spirit. 1 Cor 12-14 is the most concise section on the gifts of the Spirit. 1 Cor 14 is the only passage concerning the proper practice of tongues, and the key verse for cessationism is 1 Cor 13:10.

And those are just a few. So many volumes have been written on the Theology of Paul of Tarsus that this paltry blog can hardly do them justice. Suffice to say, we would be at a theological crux at the loss of Paul. The loss goes far deeper than just answering the problem of a supposed contradiction between Paul's heavy-handedness and "in-your-face" style with Jesus' supposed "focus" on love above all other things.

Christian Life and Ethics

So many things to list here. And I'm not going to hit a tenth of them.

1) What sins are we to avoid? Paul's writings contain several of what we refer to as "vice lists."

2) What are the defining qualities of a saved person? Paul answers this several times over, and relates them to the activity of the Spirit.

3) How is a family to operate? Paul sets the standard as the monogomous (1 Cor 7:2), same-sex (Rom 1:26-27), complementarian (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:5), loving (Eph 5:25, 28; Col 3:19; Titus 2:4-5), and nuclear (Col 3:18-21).

4) How is the local Church body to operate? The pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are all written by Paul and outline the structure, function, and discipline of the local body. Without it, we'd be up the proverbial creek with no paddle.

5) The concept of "the Spiritual man" vs. "the natural man" (1 Cor 2:14-15) is typical of Paul. His emphasis on Spirituality as being the center of Christian life is central to his teachings.

We could continue to go on forever. The point becomes abundantly clear- Paul is central to Christian Scripture, thought, life, doctrine, and theology. Without him, Christianity would not be what we know it to be.

This little (ahem) blog isn't a warning to big name guys with lots of letters after their names that write books on canonicity and really couldn't care about Christianity itself. This has been a warning to the normal people- those who have questioned Paul in light of the contemporary focus on Jesus' teachings on loving one another (of course, forgetting that Paul wrote "the love chapter," 1 Cor 13). As Rachel Held Evans said on a recent episode of NBC's "The Today Show,"

...that's the challenge...trying to figure out what parts of [the Bible] apply, and should be followed literally, and which parts are maybe culturally influenced, and how do we decide- I try to defer to Jesus, because I'm a Christian, and love the Lord with all my heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, and that's how I try to decide what parts I'm going to practice. "Does this help me love God better?" "Does this help me love my neighbor better?" So the stuff I wanted to keep after the year related to that.

The idea here is that it's okay to throw out portions of Scripture simply based on what we believe to be irrelevant or unloving. We become the hermeneutic. We decide what to believe and not believe. This is a dangerous path, and its quickly becoming a trend amongst (primarily) young Christians, and is the result of not asking the question "What is at stake?" when certain writers or portions of Scripture are ignored. Remember Peter's warning:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Pet 3:14-16, italics mine.)

Paul is at the pinnacle of Christendom. He is our highest Apostle, our example as a Christian, and the most prolific writer of the entire Bible. There is no praise worthy of a mere human that we could lavish upon him that would be sufficient- and he would deny all of them in deference to our Lord and Savior, of which his own mouth confesses that,

...from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Mike

Changing the Name...

I knew this was going to happen, and I think I may have mentioned it in the first post. I know my strengths and weaknesses, and my strong suit, if you've been reading this, is exegesis and theology. "Living by the Word" inferred that the blog was about Christian living, and it hasn't really been so much. So, it was time to change.

"Teleioteta Pherometha" [easy pronunciation: Tel-ee-oh-tay-tuh Fer-oh-may-thuh] comes from Hebrews 6:1a, which reads:

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity...

 "press on to maturity" is the translation of "teleioteta pherometha." The plea from the author of Hebrews is leave behind the easy stuff... move on to a more mature thought life. I hope through the past few months of writing, I've helped some of you in that. The fact is- people just aren't concerned and have nearly no interaction with theology. They don't know where their Bible comes from, they don't know why believe the things they do, and its often because they just don't think about it. We've all grown up in a Christianity built on historical illiteracy. We don't know these things because we no longer care about what came before us, we are totally complacent in living in the now, being 'relevant.' Its killing us.

By introducing ourselves to theology, we don't just learn the topics- we learn the process. We learn the surrounding topics and learn why and how each piece of the puzzle fits together the way it does. And to do that for ourselves, rather than relying on someone to give it to us in a half-hour-long sermon once a week just doesn't cut it.

The urge of this blog is for you to Press ON! Keep studying, keep learning, and keep being introduced to new topics, new doctrine, new discussions. Always learning, never growing stagnant.

Stay strong,

Mike

An Introduction to Romans 8

Hey there!

Been a little while since I’ve been at this blog regularly! That’s fine, I’ve found that after teaching I need some time to let my brain drain out, so a little time off was necessary. Back at it though. I teach Sunday School at my church, and the new semester is approaching, and I’m thinking I’ll probably teach through Romans 8, so I thought I’d like to share with you what I’m learning as I go along.

The Great 8. What a title to such a glorious chapter.

Romans 8 is probably the greatest and most important single chapter in all of the Bible. It holds a dear place in my heart as it was truly the height of my own personal study years ago as I was really diving into theology and Biblical exegesis in my own personal life outside of school. It was funny, as I dug out my commentaries on Romans and began to thumb through the pages, I found that nearly all my commentaries and my Bibles open directly to Romans 8. The amount of notes in those pages is glorious and is testament to the importance of this chapter.

Romans 8 is probably the most “Spiritual” chapter in the New Testament- the word pneuma is used 21 times and only twice does it not refer to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s role in the life of the mature believer is paramount, and stands in direct antithesis to the Christian who lives without the Spirit as described in the previous chapter.

It is also highly theological. Paul uses such words as “condemnation,” “redemption,” “perseverance,” “foreknew,” “predestined,” “justified,” and “elect.” The chapter is truly inexhaustible theologically; the amount of study that has gone into “the golden chain” of vs 29-30 is representative of the highly profound nature of the chapter.

Before we get into Romans chapter 8, we have to look at it within the larger context. Context is a very important element of Biblical interpretation and study, but with the book of Romans as a whole it is probably the absolute most important. Personally, I have found that when discussing (read: debating/arguing) some topic with another person and Romans is brought up, the discussion finds its conclusion quickly once context is addressed as it is easy to overlook the larger argument of the book and focus on individual sections.

Romans, unlike other books, is written in an extremely logical manner. The book as a whole forms a continuous argument from 1:18 through 15:13, having both a lengthy introduction and an even longer conclusion. When looking at particular section of the argument, finding any remotely applicable interpretation of specific sections requires a knowledge of both the immediate and the larger context, and what Paul’s purpose is in saying what he does at any particular point. The argument can be broken up into sections, each one adding to the snowballing argument. Many different theories as to how the book should be divided have been given, not differing so much in content but moreso in how specific or general the divisions themselves have been made. This is the division given by F.F. Bruce, which is a good general layout for understanding the book:

1:18- 3:20- Sin and Retribution; The Universal Need Diagnosed
3:21-5:21- The Way of Righteousness: The Universal Need Met
6:1- 8:39- The Way of Holiness
9:1-11:36- Human Unbelief and Divine Grace
12:1- 15:13- The Christian Way of Life

This is a simple division. More specific divisions of course can be made, and depending on the subject at hand, may need to be.

The first subject introduced by Paul is the beginning of his lengthy argument: The Problem of Sin. From the very beginning of his discourse he establishes the fact that there is a God, that he has revealed himself sufficiently through what is around us, and that we have, as a race, rejected him.

Paul divides humanity into two classes- the Gentiles (1:18- 32), and the Jews (2:1- 29). The Gentiles are shown to have rejected God by replacing him with idolatry. They proclaim wisdom in their folly, and are given over to sin by God as punishment for that exchange. Their sin is compounded in this, and they encourage one another in their sin, leading only to death.

The Jews, in their haughtiness, have thought themselves to be greater and more righteous due to both their pedigree and that they were given the Law- but their sin is equal. Because they have the Law, they will be judged by it, and found equally as guilty as the Gentiles. Paul concludes by segueing into the next section by demonstrating that Jews without faith are not truly Jews- only those that are circumcised in the heart can be said to be truly sons of Jacob.

Therefore, all men are under sin, and before we can improve ourselves we must fix our relationship with God. The problem is we can’t. Our only true “free will” is that we will choose whatever suits ourselves, ie.- sin (3:10-18). Man, in his sin, always tries to mend the separation by his own will, which is law and selfishness (3:20).

We cannot find the solution to the problem of sin from within ourselves; the solution must come from without; namely, from God (3:23). The solution to the problem is to be declared just by God himself. This justification cannot be earned by works; or it would be from ourselves and not from God, so it must be given as a gift. Paul’s treatise on salvation is summed up in 3:28:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

He goes on to illustrate this point in Romans 4, how men were saved by faith in the Old Testament. Abraham, who lived before the Law, and therefore could not be saved by it, “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Righteousness is something declared by God, and is imputed to our account. Our righteousness is based on the work of Another.

And with Romans 5 we have the beautifully worded verse 1:

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

All that was outlined in 1:18-3:20 is now undone. God’s wrath is no longer upon us (5:9). We were once enemies, at enmity with God, but now we are at peace with him. This happened through the imputation of righteousness from the account of Christ to our own account. Sin was imputed to us through Adam. Through his sin we have all sinned. We are not guilty of his specific sin, but guilt of that sin has been charged to us through because we have him as our father. But, just as that guilt of sin has been passed to us through he who is seen as the representative of our race, Adam, so has righteousness been passed to us through he who is the head of the elect, Christ.

Being that we have had righteousness imputed to Christ, we have been baptized into his death, and therefore we have died with him (6:3-9). We no longer need to sin. We have been freed from it. Compared to our old life of being caught in a cycle of it (1:24-32), we are now completely freed from it. Where we were once slaves to sin, we are now slaves of righteousness (6:18).

Because the Law was the onset of sin, for we would not have known sin without the Law, we are therefore freed from it (7:6). Just as a wife is freed from her husband in death, so we, who have died with Christ are free to be united to him. The Law, which is pure and holy, brought on sin by making us aware of it. Through the Law, sin was able to take hold of us. But, having died to the Law and being bonded to Christ, we are now free to live unto righteousness. Sin, having become shown as sin, has become “utterly sinful” (7:13).

That said, we are still human. We still sin. Sin takes hold of us and drags us down. We as Christians, born again unto Christ, having been freed from sin and death and being at peace with God, are still fleshly. Though we wish to do well, so many times we do not. Not once here is the Holy Spirit mentioned. And why not? It is to show the contrast between he who lives according to the Spirit and he who does not. We are helpless without the Spirit. Even as Christians, with so many benefits having been justified by faith, are still incapable of good without the Holy Spirit. We cannot do it on our own. We are different from those who are unsaved in that we can concur with the Law of God “in the inner man,” they cannot (7:22). It is the sin in us that produces sin, at constant war with the mind. “Who will set me free?” Notice that it is a passive statement. This is not a battle we can win of our own merit, but must come from the power of someone else. Romans 8 has that answer.

“There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

See you next time.

Mike