vs 1
Peace with God is a worthwhile thing to have. It comes through justification, which comes to us by faith. This is the culmination of Paul's argument about righteousness being credited for faith in the last chapter.
vs 2
This seems a little repetitive, but Paul has introduced a new aspect - grace. The reason that Christians stand in a position of undeserved favour before God is because of Christ. He is both our righteousness, our justification and our grace.
Not sure what Paul is getting at exactly with the boasting, but just taking it as read, I think he's saying that as Christians, because we are now in these favoured positions of justification and righteousness, we are actually looking forward to the glory of God in the end times.
vs 3-4
So not only do we look forward to our eternal future with God, but we also look forward to present sufferings.
Now, looking forward to sufferings is not a generally accepted thing in life these days. Perhaps there have been some ascetic cults that thought sufferings were rituals of purification or something. But I don't think that's what Paul is getting at. We don't hunt down suffering, we endure it knowing that it leads to glory.
Paul makes the argument that suffering leads to perseverance, then to character, and then to hope. I suppose this is a logical progression, but the only thing to me that seems to be worthy of glory is hope.
vs 5
What really bugs me is that Paul is writing this letter to the Romans to explain the gospel foundations, but then he bandies around terms like hope without explaining what the hope is at all (besides the glory of God).
Why does hope not put us to shame? Well, isn't the question why would hope put us to shame? The logical answer to that question seems to be that hope would put us to shame if it were not realised. But then, how is the rest of verse 5 an answer to that question? How does God's love or the gift of the Holy Spirit prevent hope from putting us to shame?
I guess the pat answer is that the Holy Spirit and the love of God act as seals to prove to us that our hope is genuine. But Paul doesn't actually seem to say that. I'm really pulling that idea from other parts of the NT and shoving it into this verse, and I don't like that.
vs 6
It's interesting what the commas do to this sentence. In the (T)NIV, they suggest that the right time was while we were powerless. Of course, that means the right time was anytime, because humanity has always been powerless.
Or is this two ideas - that the time it happened at was just the right time, and it was also while we were powerless? This seems far more plausible to me, because we would have been powerless anytime. But that means then that it was the right time for some undefined reason.
vs 7
Ooh, the TNIV uses 'person'. How non-gender specific.
It's an interesting thing to wonder exactly what Paul meant as the difference between a 'righteous' person and a 'good' person. You would think that they were synonyms, but they are separated strongly here - one people are possibly prepared to die for! The other, not so much.
Of course, I think the main point of these examples is brought up in the next verse - the idea being that while it might be rare for people to die for a righteous man, and possible for people to die for a good man, who would die for a sinner?
vs 8
The answer is that Christ did. And this is how God demonstrates his love. He didn't wait for us to become the righteous or the good person. He died for us when no one else would - when we were sinners.
vs 9
I would have thought justification was enough to save us from wrath. But you know what, perhaps it isn't. Wrath is more than just punishment - it is an anger, a fuming that God has against those who break his law and rebel against him. But Paul is saying here that Christ's justification for us through his blood does not anger God, but it shows God's love for us. It is the justification that prevents judgement - the demonstration of God's love that steers away wrath.
vs 10
I think this is a word play on the resurrection. If by death we are reconciled, how much more will we be saved by his resurrection life?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
vs 4: Paul makes the argument that suffering leads to perseverance, then to character, and then to hope. I suppose this is a logical progression, but the only thing to me that seems to be worthy of glory is hope.
Can you unpack that a little? I don't know what exactly you mean by something being "worthy of glory", or why only hope would be so.
Also, this is reminding me of a... let's call it a debate - that Brad and I had on the mission about praying for suffering. He was of the opinion that we should pray to suffer, based (I think) on what Paul says in Phil 3.10: I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death - I think the reasoning goes that we should want suffering (presumably Christ's suffering specifically) and should therefore pray for it. This being in the context of the complacency and comfortableness of the Western church, etc, and that a little suffering would do us good (no argument there).
I hope I'm doing justice to his argument, since I disagreed. I'm curious what you think - is it biblical to pray to suffer?
It doesn't really require that much unpacking - the TNIV (and interestingly the KJV) say in vs 3 that we "glory" in our sufferings (KJV - tribulations).
If you read the regular NIV, it says we rejoice in our sufferings. To me, rejoicing is a little different from glorying.
In my NASB online interlinear Bible, the greek word in question is kauchaomai, which means to glory in - although interestingly the NASB only translates it that way twice - almost every other time it translates it as 'boast'. In Romans 5 it translates as 'exult'.
To keep it in the Romans family, the word for rejoice used in Rom 12:15 is chairo, which means "to rejoice or be glad" and is translated that way pretty much all the time it's not being used as a salutation.
For the purposes of my argument, glory is the word that my comment was based on. So rather than the idea of going "Yay, suffering!" it is the idea of going "Check out my awesome suffering". Were I to be rejoicing, perhaps perseverance and character would be worthy of a "Yay!". But in glorying, less so. After all, the character and perseverance you receive, not achieve. They aren't yours, so you can't really glory in them.
The question then arises - are the suffering and hope yours? I would cf Col 1:24 and say yes to suffering (where, ironically, Paul chairos in his suffering). Hope I would have to make more of a first principles argument about, but I still would say yes.
However, suffering I think is easier to glory in than it is to rejoice in - gladness and joy will be yours despite suffering, I would say. Glory comes out of suffering. Hope you can rejoice in or glory in quite easily.
I hope that's a reasonable unpacking.
As to your debate with Brad, as long as we are keeping the whole thing enclosed within the prayer walls, I would say it is biblical to pray to be more like Christ.
I'm interested - you agree with Brad that suffering would do us good, but you disagree with praying for something that would do us good? Methinks I smell a paradox rat.
I think that's exactly it, though - praying for suffering seems to me to be focusing on the wrong thing. To pray for Christ-likness, to pray that God would refine us and make us into his image, and to acknowledge and accept and pray about the aspect of suffering that will necessarily be a part of that is all good. I've prayed those prayers more often than I've wanted to! And I think they're in line with biblical principles and all that stuff. I think it's good to pray that people not run away from the suffering God has ordained for them, which is often possible in our society, to be prepared to sacrifice, not to close our eyes to the suffering around us. All aspects of suffering, all good to pray about.
The problem I have is when it is suggested that we simply pray to suffer. That seems, to me, to be putting the emphasis back on ourselves, a question of personal endurance under trials, and bordering on masochism. Christ didn't do it - he put himself in the Father's hands, knowing it would result in suffering, but he didn't stand there and say "bring it on". And I understand that Paul didn't divorce suffering from the greater context of sharing in Christ's life and work, and I agree that praying as he did, with that context, for suffering is sound.
I guess, as usual, the distinctions are in the attitude and motivation for the prayer more than the substance of it. And I acknowledge the distinction could become very fine. I just think that cavalierly praying for suffering, because you think the wealthy, privileged people around you aren't getting enough of it, is entirely the wrong end of the stick to have hold of... Anyhow, I don't want to turn this into a rant. Do I need to elaborate more, or am I making unparadoxical sense? Eoflooqt.
I have a few answers for you - you can choose your own adventure.
If you want to come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit intercedes for our prayers regardless, turn to Rom 8:26-27.
If you want to see Paul do pretty much everything short of praying for a church to suffer, read 1 Cor 4.
If you want to realise that not everyone is as intellectual as you, turn to 1 Cor 1:25.
I think we really do have to separate out the kind of suffering we're talking about though - because your mum having cancer, or having your business go bankrupt, or living in the path of a tornado is not the same as being crucified for being a Christian. It is also not the same as being punished for sinful behaviour, which can also be described as suffering.
While it is true that God can bless those who have been through the first three kinds of painful experiences, none of them target you because you are a Christian (unless someone purposefully injects you with cancer, bankrupts your business or forces you to live in the path of tornados because of your faith in Christ).
This is where the rubber of ideology hits the road of pragmatics. God commands that we do his will. He forewarns us that in doing so, it is certain that we will suffer (and I pick the word 'certain' carefully) because people will cause us to suffer.
If you believe in free will, then you believe that there is a chance that you will walk into any given town/city/village and do God's will, and you will not suffer because everyone rejoices. Either you walked into a church, or God has moved and everyone is eager to hear the gospel and become a Christian.
However, the odds are that no matter where you go in the world, if you are doing what God wants you to do, people are going to make you suffer purely because that is your goal. They might not realise it or frame it in that way, but that will be the result.
Jesus knew that. He may not be recorded as praying to suffer, but he walked into Jerusalem knowing what was going to happen to him. I think Paul does go that one step further and pray for his own suffering (such as in Phil 3:10 or Rom 8:17). Does he pray that other Christians will suffer though? I don't think it's recorded, but his attitude towards Corinth borders it in my opinion.
God works in a counter-cultural way, and blesses through suffering at the hands of others (as opposed to the suffering that I mentioned earlier). Our salvation came through Christ suffering at the hands of leaders. Evangelism is pretty much done entirely through suffering the negative attitudes and actions of others. The Christian life of discipleship and maturity is one of suffering what other people do to you because of your Christian attitude.
God works in a counter-cultural way, and blesses through suffering.
Yes, I do realise there is also a spiritual aspect to suffering, and I don't want to seem to be downplaying it - obviously the spiritual side to Christ's suffering for our redemption is very theologically significant, and people do suffer attacks from the devil etc. However, since you have to be fairly spiritually discerning to know when Satan throws a coconut at you and when the coconut just falls off the tree, it's someone less easily measurable.
"If you want to realise that not everyone is as intellectual as you, turn to 1 Cor 1:25."
Read it - not really sure what that has to do with the topic at hand, though - or what it has to do with me, either...?
"If you want to see Paul do pretty much everything short of praying for a church to suffer, read 1 Cor 4."
... So what you're saying is even Paul draws the line at directly praying for others to suffer? ;)
Post a Comment