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

The Social Media Personal Soap Opera

Hey y'all.

This is something that's been on my mind for a little while, something that struck me while reading an article about Christians using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.

There has always been something that has struck me as "wrong" (not in the moral sense, but in the "something is a little off") sense about the way Christians post on Facebook. The amount of complaining and self-absorbtion that goes on is ridiculous. The reason I titled this post what I did is because this is how I see it- people creating a little soap opera that focuses on themselves. Taking a picture of how sick I am, posting where I am, posting about how awesome my triple latte mocha frappacino dulce extra spice soy thingamadoodle is right now... I sometimes question motives.

Now of course there is a fine line here. As an artist, I like to see people expressing themselves, and I think there are ways that non-artists can express themselves in non-artistic ways, and I think that social media is one of them. Posting thoughts, things about your life, what you're going through, so on and so forth, I think its great. Especially in the sense of Facebook being an electronic, up to date yearbook. Its a way for us all to stay connected and involved in each other's lives. But what is the motive behind it all? Is it to share your life, or is it to bring attention to yourself? When you post a picture of how sick you are, are you sharing your life with other people in a positive way or are you just trying to get sympathy? Are you trying to see how many people will respond "Oh I'm praying for you," or "You look terrible! Hope you feel better [little picture of a heart]!" If its the latter, then don't you think that its a little selfish? A little self centered? Its one thing when people seek us out to see how we're doing, its another thing to seek out others for our own benefit.

Its kinda like one thing I always hated... when people would bring something to a social gathering, like a coffee or something similar, just so other people would say, "Oh you went to Starbucks? Lucky!" Its just showing off, plain and simple. Its one thing when someone's just thirsty and wants a drink, but you could always tell the ones that were doing it for attention.

So my little two cents: think about why you're posting. If its simply because you want to share your life, great! If you're trying to get attention, stop. Please, stop. Bring glory to Christ, not to yourself. Our lives are fleeting, and attention is worth nothing. I think there's a little application in here in Philippians 2:6:

although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped

 Christ didn't live to bring glory to himself, to make his own name great. He did all things according to the will of his Father. His life was lived to always point to another. So should be the same with ours.


In Him,

Mike