vs 11
Well, apparently that's what the Septuagint says. Because the Masoretic text says something a little different. But the verse Paul hearkens back to is the one about a cornerstone or capstone, and Peter also alludes to this being Christ. It's only the "put to shame" bit that is different.
vs 12-13
This is an important verse. If we translate this quite literally, then we're going to have a problem defending any sort of special imprimatur for the people of Israel, as there is actually no difference between Jew and gentile. The focus of the verse that Paul quotes is that "everyone" will be saved if they call on God. The unspoken fact being of course that people have to call on God to be saved, and not expect themselves to be saved through some sort of different mechanism other than Christ.
vs 14-15
All good questions. One question we have to face is whether Paul is talking about all people, or now again specifically about the Jews? The very next verse is all about Jews, after all. Paul, while he may have a heart for the Jews, was called as the missionary to the gentiles. So he has a bit of a challenge here. He's saying that people must be sent to preach the gospel to everyone (which of course includes Jews) but then, while he does his bit, that can't really be his focus. That makes him sad.
I should say something about the number of biblical quotes that have been used in this section alone. It's a lot. Paul is obviously adamant that his view be accepted.
vs 16
This is one of the weirder ways of using Scripture. I mean, Isaiah wasn't talking about this message specifically, although he was talking about a message from God more broadly. The Jews didn't accept his message then, and I guess the Jews aren't accepting his message now. Broad bow, I don't really like using Scripture like that, but I guess Paul did. It's a Jewish thing I guess.
vs 17
Now this is one of those verses where people who don't like new versions will say that the translators have been sloppy by adding words like "message", because they are not in the greek. Interestingly, I have found a place where I can see different versions of the greek text online (www.olivetree.com if you're interested) and yet the Byzantine (majority) text doesn't seem to include the classic KJV translation of 1 john 5:7. The 1894 Textus Receptus does though, so I'll use that.
Why am I babbling on about greek? Only because even though the (T)NIV translates with the words "message" included for clarity, the KJV interestingly translates "God" instead of "Christ". But that is because the Byzantine text indeed has the word for God and not Christ there.
Anyway, this verse in an of itself has quite an interesting question posed to it - what exactly does it mean? The reason I ask is because you could get confused by wondering how faith comes by hearing, when the Jews who heard it did not accept it. (Ok, I admit - that was me who got confused.) I think Paul is talking about the fact that without hearing the gospel, you can't respond to the gospel.
vs 18
Ahhh, I see. Paul is exploring the specific situation of Israel. So here he says, "Did they hear?" Of course they did! So that can't be the problem.
vs 19
Did they understand it though? Well, this time, the answer doesn't seem so clear. It seems like even from Moses there is a call saying that the people of Israel grew fat and lazy, and angered God and so God told them that he would frustrate them with a people who aren't a nation.
vs 20
Even Isaiah seems to think that those who have listened to his message have not been Israel, but gentiles.
vs 21
But try as he might, God did not get the message through to Israel. Not for lack of trying! But in the end, Israel were obstinate. They would not listen to their God. And now, they are showing the fruit of their disobedience and their closed ears - for when their Christ has come, they have ignored him and killed him! No wonder Paul feels so bad for them.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Romans chapter 10
vs 1
Now Paul started his discussion of Israel a chapter ago, but got distracted by the salvation of the gentiles, so now we're back to Israel.
vs 2
Which is an interesting statement to make about Israel. The whole point about the Jews is that they were given the Law and thus were blessed. But now they make their decisions about God not based on knowledge.
vs 3
So in the many years that the Jews built up a tradition around their human understanding, they had strayed from simply accepting the word of God and moved to injecting it with all sorts of human tradition. This is surely reminiscent of the Catholic church, which puts its own tradition on par with the Bible.
vs 4
While the law is valuable and from God, Christ is the culmination of that law. The end point. He is the one who is righteous according to the law. The law of God, that is, not the laws that the Jews made up themselves. Jesus had several run-ins with those, if you recall.
vs 5
My gosh, can the wording of such a small verse be so convoluted? I think the NASB translates this verse best - not the Romans verse, but the original Leviticus verse, "So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD."
So to paraphrase the TNIV - "Whoever does these things will live because of/through/by them". "Live by them" is a common English idiomatic phrase, and the translators should have known better.
vs 6-8
I never realised that these were actual quotes from Deuteronomy! I find that quite interesting. The idea of the Law being on your hearts is there from the beginning. The original Deuteronomy text is talking about finding the law - you don't have to ascend into the sky to find it, nor across the sea (so Paul changed that one a bit) so someone has to go and get it.
Rather, Paul allegorises this passage to make it fit with Jesus - he is the Law culminated, after all, so anything said about the Law can be said about him.
vs 9
This is one of Paul's classic one line wrapups of the gospel. This is the faith that comes from Paul, and that comes from the Law of Christ apparently. It is a dual message of belief and proclamation.
vs 10
A profession of faith does not mean that you are working for your salvation, or adding to it somehow by your profession. I would say baptism is just as strong a profession. The point being that faith is only faith if it is both believed and professed. Neither of those things necessarily come from us. It is the strength of God that allows us to profess openly, and the faith God gives us that allows us to believe.
Now Paul started his discussion of Israel a chapter ago, but got distracted by the salvation of the gentiles, so now we're back to Israel.
vs 2
Which is an interesting statement to make about Israel. The whole point about the Jews is that they were given the Law and thus were blessed. But now they make their decisions about God not based on knowledge.
vs 3
So in the many years that the Jews built up a tradition around their human understanding, they had strayed from simply accepting the word of God and moved to injecting it with all sorts of human tradition. This is surely reminiscent of the Catholic church, which puts its own tradition on par with the Bible.
vs 4
While the law is valuable and from God, Christ is the culmination of that law. The end point. He is the one who is righteous according to the law. The law of God, that is, not the laws that the Jews made up themselves. Jesus had several run-ins with those, if you recall.
vs 5
My gosh, can the wording of such a small verse be so convoluted? I think the NASB translates this verse best - not the Romans verse, but the original Leviticus verse, "So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD."
So to paraphrase the TNIV - "Whoever does these things will live because of/through/by them". "Live by them" is a common English idiomatic phrase, and the translators should have known better.
vs 6-8
I never realised that these were actual quotes from Deuteronomy! I find that quite interesting. The idea of the Law being on your hearts is there from the beginning. The original Deuteronomy text is talking about finding the law - you don't have to ascend into the sky to find it, nor across the sea (so Paul changed that one a bit) so someone has to go and get it.
Rather, Paul allegorises this passage to make it fit with Jesus - he is the Law culminated, after all, so anything said about the Law can be said about him.
vs 9
This is one of Paul's classic one line wrapups of the gospel. This is the faith that comes from Paul, and that comes from the Law of Christ apparently. It is a dual message of belief and proclamation.
vs 10
A profession of faith does not mean that you are working for your salvation, or adding to it somehow by your profession. I would say baptism is just as strong a profession. The point being that faith is only faith if it is both believed and professed. Neither of those things necessarily come from us. It is the strength of God that allows us to profess openly, and the faith God gives us that allows us to believe.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Romans chapter 9
vs 30-31
One good reason for not saying this is because it involves intimating that Israel ever really did strive after righteousness! Although it is worth saying that after Second Temple, it appears they didn't have a problem with idolatry.
To say that the gentiles never really strove after righteousness is probably fair.
vs 32
But that comes out of right field! The idea that Israel, who strove for righteousness, have not found it because they made it about works and not about faith is true, says Paul! And he would know, having been trained as a Pharisee.
And so it was that through making Israel an object of wrath in the contemporary time, gentiles might see that it is faith that is important and not the striving towards good works.
vs 33
Who stumbled over that rock more than the Jews? No one, it seems. Perhaps Athenians?
One good reason for not saying this is because it involves intimating that Israel ever really did strive after righteousness! Although it is worth saying that after Second Temple, it appears they didn't have a problem with idolatry.
To say that the gentiles never really strove after righteousness is probably fair.
vs 32
But that comes out of right field! The idea that Israel, who strove for righteousness, have not found it because they made it about works and not about faith is true, says Paul! And he would know, having been trained as a Pharisee.
And so it was that through making Israel an object of wrath in the contemporary time, gentiles might see that it is faith that is important and not the striving towards good works.
vs 33
Who stumbled over that rock more than the Jews? No one, it seems. Perhaps Athenians?
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Romans chapter 9
vs 22
If you are prepared to consider some of the objects of God's wrath in the Old Testament, I think yo will see this idea illustrated. God gave Pharoah 10 plagues to make up his mind. God gave the Canaanites 400 odd years before an army of Israelites came and owned them. And how long did God suffer the indignities of his treasured possession Israel?
vs 23
The idea that God might flex his muscles and cause chaos and bedlam to rain down on evil-doers is a little distasteful. However, Paul is making an opposing claim - that rather than God crushing his enemies in a display of power, he shows patience to his enemies in order that his glory will be seen all the more strongly by those on whom he shows mercy.
Yes, he still smashes his enemies though.
vs 24
Paul wants to make it clear that these objects of mercy are indeed Christians - called from Jewish and non-Jewish stock.
vs 25
Of course, reading this from our perspective, we instantly see this as referring to gentiles. But when Hosea wrote this, or when God spoke it through him to Israel at the time, what did it mean to them? I wonder if they even thought of it including gentiles? I actually wrote an essay on this last year, and came to the conclusion that this was one of the primary meanings at the time for some passages. I'd have to look more closely at Hosea to make a decision I guess.
But regardless of what it meant specifically at the time, the overall meaning would have been obvious - that God was seeking to open his arms to people who had not accepted him.
vs 26
This is more obviously written to Israel, because it references a time in Israel's history (I'm guessing there, to be honest).
But those who are out of God's family are brought in. That's the point.
vs 27-28
Ok, that one's a little painful. Soteriologically, I would say that this can indeed be seen by the "remnant" of Jews who have claimed Christ as their Lord. This verse actually stretches forward into the eschatological too, because it talks about God's sentence on the earth too. Remnant theology is a tricky one though - because some people attempt to then bring it into the modern fold of Christendom, and that's a whole new barrel of fish.
vs 29
Paul is dealing with the fact that Israel seems to have been left behind by the movement of the Spirit of God - that a bunch of gentiles seems to now be in the majority in the church global (perhaps even the roman church locally) and this causes people to question why the Jews aren't more properly represented, if God is the same God of the Jews? He's using verses like this one from Isaiah to show that while yes, God seems to be working in a different direction, the fact is that he has both shown justice and mercy to the Jews. While only a remnant may hold to the new covenant, this is a show of God's mercy, as he could just as easily stripped them of descendants entirely and ended the story of Israel forever.
If you are prepared to consider some of the objects of God's wrath in the Old Testament, I think yo will see this idea illustrated. God gave Pharoah 10 plagues to make up his mind. God gave the Canaanites 400 odd years before an army of Israelites came and owned them. And how long did God suffer the indignities of his treasured possession Israel?
vs 23
The idea that God might flex his muscles and cause chaos and bedlam to rain down on evil-doers is a little distasteful. However, Paul is making an opposing claim - that rather than God crushing his enemies in a display of power, he shows patience to his enemies in order that his glory will be seen all the more strongly by those on whom he shows mercy.
Yes, he still smashes his enemies though.
vs 24
Paul wants to make it clear that these objects of mercy are indeed Christians - called from Jewish and non-Jewish stock.
vs 25
Of course, reading this from our perspective, we instantly see this as referring to gentiles. But when Hosea wrote this, or when God spoke it through him to Israel at the time, what did it mean to them? I wonder if they even thought of it including gentiles? I actually wrote an essay on this last year, and came to the conclusion that this was one of the primary meanings at the time for some passages. I'd have to look more closely at Hosea to make a decision I guess.
But regardless of what it meant specifically at the time, the overall meaning would have been obvious - that God was seeking to open his arms to people who had not accepted him.
vs 26
This is more obviously written to Israel, because it references a time in Israel's history (I'm guessing there, to be honest).
But those who are out of God's family are brought in. That's the point.
vs 27-28
Ok, that one's a little painful. Soteriologically, I would say that this can indeed be seen by the "remnant" of Jews who have claimed Christ as their Lord. This verse actually stretches forward into the eschatological too, because it talks about God's sentence on the earth too. Remnant theology is a tricky one though - because some people attempt to then bring it into the modern fold of Christendom, and that's a whole new barrel of fish.
vs 29
Paul is dealing with the fact that Israel seems to have been left behind by the movement of the Spirit of God - that a bunch of gentiles seems to now be in the majority in the church global (perhaps even the roman church locally) and this causes people to question why the Jews aren't more properly represented, if God is the same God of the Jews? He's using verses like this one from Isaiah to show that while yes, God seems to be working in a different direction, the fact is that he has both shown justice and mercy to the Jews. While only a remnant may hold to the new covenant, this is a show of God's mercy, as he could just as easily stripped them of descendants entirely and ended the story of Israel forever.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Romans Chapter 9
vs 11
Now we're in a bit of a pickle with this argument. The argument goes "Neither of the twins had done anything good or bad, but God chose one over the other". The point being that God is a god of election - he chooses for himself a people, and by the nature of that choice, some people are rejected.
But it's the idea of "neither having done anything good or bad" that I want to take issue with today. Because although the twins hadn't done anything yet, God surely knew what they would do, right? So does this mean that there's a difference between God knowing something and people doing it? Why would it matter whether they had done anything yet or not, considering God is atemporal and knows all things?
vs 12
I think this verse is probably the key. The point God is wanting to make that entering his Kingdom is not a matter of works, but a matter of God's election. And to us, who are temporal, this point is made clear when God chooses a child whom we have not seen do anything wrong or rihgteous.
vs 13
Of course, when it later turns out that Jacob is a conniving bugger, then we are only further surprised at God's choice.
vs 14
The idea that God chooses one over another based on nothing else other than his own choosing might to us seem unfair. But Paul wants to make it clear that this is not so.
vs 15
Unfortunately for us, he chooses to do this using God's words in Exodus which you could be forgiven for thinking came out of the Quran and not the Bible. I think we get back to the God principle - that things we would generally belittle or despise when done by a human are not the same when done by the eternal, atemporal, all powerful God. When a human does things for their own glory and honour, we call them names. When God does it, he's really the only one who deserves it, so it's sensible. When a human kills someone to make a point, we call them brutal or heartless. When God does it, he is the ultimate arbiter of life and death, and so has the authority to do such things. When a human decides to have mercy on one person, and no mercy on another, we think that's judgemental or unfair or prejudice. When God does it, I suppose it is his right.
vs 16
And when we look at it from God's view, we see a level of justice and equity that we perhaps cannot see without an eternal view - the idea that God has taken the responsibility away from humanity and put it on himself.
vs 17
Of course, this might not look super fair to Pharoah, but we also must remember that Pharoah did make his own choices (well, unless you don't believe in free will at all in the gospel). The idea of humanity expressing free will and God making declaritive statements about their actions being his and not theirs are not fundamentally paradoxical. It's funny how throwing God into an equation suddenly makes a lot of things work. Not that I am proposing a "God of the Gaps" ideology. More just a logical reasoning model that allows for perceived impossibilities to be bypassed by omnipotence.
vs 18
and I think what Paul leaves unsaid here is "and God gets glorified either way".
vs 19
And so here the paradox raises its ugly little head. It's a fair question.
vs 20-21
And Paul gives the biblical answer. No, it's not all that satisfying. But it has been repeated through Ecclesiastes, Job and elsewhere. Yes, there are bad things. Yes, God is in control. Yes, you cannot resist his will. Yes, you still get blamed and are still sinful. No, you do not get an answer to this.
God has never revealed the inner truth of these statements. At least he's consistent.
Now we're in a bit of a pickle with this argument. The argument goes "Neither of the twins had done anything good or bad, but God chose one over the other". The point being that God is a god of election - he chooses for himself a people, and by the nature of that choice, some people are rejected.
But it's the idea of "neither having done anything good or bad" that I want to take issue with today. Because although the twins hadn't done anything yet, God surely knew what they would do, right? So does this mean that there's a difference between God knowing something and people doing it? Why would it matter whether they had done anything yet or not, considering God is atemporal and knows all things?
vs 12
I think this verse is probably the key. The point God is wanting to make that entering his Kingdom is not a matter of works, but a matter of God's election. And to us, who are temporal, this point is made clear when God chooses a child whom we have not seen do anything wrong or rihgteous.
vs 13
Of course, when it later turns out that Jacob is a conniving bugger, then we are only further surprised at God's choice.
vs 14
The idea that God chooses one over another based on nothing else other than his own choosing might to us seem unfair. But Paul wants to make it clear that this is not so.
vs 15
Unfortunately for us, he chooses to do this using God's words in Exodus which you could be forgiven for thinking came out of the Quran and not the Bible. I think we get back to the God principle - that things we would generally belittle or despise when done by a human are not the same when done by the eternal, atemporal, all powerful God. When a human does things for their own glory and honour, we call them names. When God does it, he's really the only one who deserves it, so it's sensible. When a human kills someone to make a point, we call them brutal or heartless. When God does it, he is the ultimate arbiter of life and death, and so has the authority to do such things. When a human decides to have mercy on one person, and no mercy on another, we think that's judgemental or unfair or prejudice. When God does it, I suppose it is his right.
vs 16
And when we look at it from God's view, we see a level of justice and equity that we perhaps cannot see without an eternal view - the idea that God has taken the responsibility away from humanity and put it on himself.
vs 17
Of course, this might not look super fair to Pharoah, but we also must remember that Pharoah did make his own choices (well, unless you don't believe in free will at all in the gospel). The idea of humanity expressing free will and God making declaritive statements about their actions being his and not theirs are not fundamentally paradoxical. It's funny how throwing God into an equation suddenly makes a lot of things work. Not that I am proposing a "God of the Gaps" ideology. More just a logical reasoning model that allows for perceived impossibilities to be bypassed by omnipotence.
vs 18
and I think what Paul leaves unsaid here is "and God gets glorified either way".
vs 19
And so here the paradox raises its ugly little head. It's a fair question.
vs 20-21
And Paul gives the biblical answer. No, it's not all that satisfying. But it has been repeated through Ecclesiastes, Job and elsewhere. Yes, there are bad things. Yes, God is in control. Yes, you cannot resist his will. Yes, you still get blamed and are still sinful. No, you do not get an answer to this.
God has never revealed the inner truth of these statements. At least he's consistent.
And now, a word from our sponsors...
It's GenCon Oz! (first two photos courtesy of these people I don't know)
Yes, this isn't a normal post. But without Shadowfist I would be a whole lot less sane, and without GenCon Oz the world would be that much less awesome. So here's some crappy photos I took (subject matter is great - quality terrible).
So here is the swag that was up for grabs for the Shadowfist Final Brawl at GenCon Oz. Ignoring peripheral things on table, you've got a Kinoshita House of Pancakes, a box of Critical Shift, a Ghost in the Shell DVD, a Can of Whupass, and then at the back, the glorious Sword of the Master.
And then some more photos of the Sword of the Master. Because it deserves them.
For those interested, you will see my wife's card box on the right, which she lovingly crafted to have Auspicious Termites coat the lid. My souless green lunchbox lies below.
The table layout from the side, as Brad draws up the first round matchups. Here also is some wicked throwing down in progress.
Yes, there were other games at GenCon Oz too - here's a photo taken in the 4th ed preview I played in. 4th ed felt that the only way to move forward was to borrow a concept from Feng Shui, and to bring in mooks (they call them 'minions', but they're not fooling anyone).
Next to that is us playing in Kevin Powe's quite awesome "Empty Chambers, Spent Shells". Three thumbs up for Kevin on this game.
Penny won the "Who Wants Some" duelling event (by one game!) and so was awarded a box of Shurikens and Six Guns, as well as a Public Enemy no.1. She likes this photo. And there's me with my second prize for duelling, the truly sweet Silver Band shirt.
And there finally are the photos of me looking like a total tool, but holding the prizes I won for becoming Brisbane's Shadowfist Multiplayer Champion 2008. Until I saw the sword, the number 1 prize for me was Kinoshita House of Pancakes. And I am still very happy with it - no doubt it will be in every tournament deck I play with.
Since I had just recently opened a box of Critical Shift with Penny, I decided to sell the box to Randall for $50, because it is so hard to get cards in Australia, and it was his birthday after all. I did make him promise to trade me for any "The Blind" he drew - but he got none. He did get two La Grange Four - lucky him!
Anyway, now that the photo shoot's over, here's some people pretending to be Jedi.
Yes, this isn't a normal post. But without Shadowfist I would be a whole lot less sane, and without GenCon Oz the world would be that much less awesome. So here's some crappy photos I took (subject matter is great - quality terrible).
So here is the swag that was up for grabs for the Shadowfist Final Brawl at GenCon Oz. Ignoring peripheral things on table, you've got a Kinoshita House of Pancakes, a box of Critical Shift, a Ghost in the Shell DVD, a Can of Whupass, and then at the back, the glorious Sword of the Master.
And then some more photos of the Sword of the Master. Because it deserves them.
For those interested, you will see my wife's card box on the right, which she lovingly crafted to have Auspicious Termites coat the lid. My souless green lunchbox lies below.
The table layout from the side, as Brad draws up the first round matchups. Here also is some wicked throwing down in progress.
Yes, there were other games at GenCon Oz too - here's a photo taken in the 4th ed preview I played in. 4th ed felt that the only way to move forward was to borrow a concept from Feng Shui, and to bring in mooks (they call them 'minions', but they're not fooling anyone).
Next to that is us playing in Kevin Powe's quite awesome "Empty Chambers, Spent Shells". Three thumbs up for Kevin on this game.
Penny won the "Who Wants Some" duelling event (by one game!) and so was awarded a box of Shurikens and Six Guns, as well as a Public Enemy no.1. She likes this photo. And there's me with my second prize for duelling, the truly sweet Silver Band shirt.
And there finally are the photos of me looking like a total tool, but holding the prizes I won for becoming Brisbane's Shadowfist Multiplayer Champion 2008. Until I saw the sword, the number 1 prize for me was Kinoshita House of Pancakes. And I am still very happy with it - no doubt it will be in every tournament deck I play with.
Since I had just recently opened a box of Critical Shift with Penny, I decided to sell the box to Randall for $50, because it is so hard to get cards in Australia, and it was his birthday after all. I did make him promise to trade me for any "The Blind" he drew - but he got none. He did get two La Grange Four - lucky him!
Anyway, now that the photo shoot's over, here's some people pretending to be Jedi.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Romans chapter 9
vs 1
For this sort of buildup, it's obvious that Paul is coming up to a new point that he's serious about.
vs 2
Considering the positive news that he's just written, this seems a little out of kilter. What could make him so upset?
vs 3
Crazy verse numbering in fine tradition here.
This is a big wish - Paul is prepared to go to hell for his people. But I guess, while this is a shocking thing to say, is it any more than what Christ was prepared to do for us - separate himself from God for our sakes?
vs 4
Perhaps when we read this, we think 'was' would be more appropriate. But I think that's the whole point that Paul is making - these promises were all made to Israel. Now, that doesn't mean for a second that I don't think they haven't come to fulfilment in Christ. I still firmly believe that Christ is the only way to God. Adoption? Christ. Law? Christ. Promises? Christ, Christ and Christ.
What upsets Paul, I think, is that the Jewish people overall seem to have not taken up the answer to the promises made to them by God, while gentiles seem to take their place in the Kingdom.
What is this in answer to? I don't know. It doesn't seem to flow naturally from the last point. Perhaps there were issues regarding Jews and gentiles in Rome.
vs 5
Overall they have been blessed a lot. This makes it all the more sad when they, who have been blessed, and have been the receivers of so much from God directly as his special people, have now turned their backs on him.
vs 6
This verse is the real clincher for me. Well, this one (written rather ambiguously) and the following verses. My reading of this verse, considering what follows, is this: "Israel is made up of more than just those who are born physically of the twelve tribes".
The reason Paul wants to make this clear is because the challenge could be made that God failed in his words and promises to Israel, because they have failed to take up his promises. Paul says, "No - this is only true if you don't understand what Israel is."
Of course, you could also read this more literally, and say "there are those who are born of Israel, but who then went off and married outside of Israel, and so they're not considered of Israel anymore". But I would struggle to see how that relates to Paul's greater point.
vs 7
Again, those Jews who call themselves children of Abraham are not alone the children of Abraham. Paul is not talking about Ishmael and his descendents either. Well, in a way he is, but typologically, not merely literally.
Of course, you can read it only literally, but I think you would then be missing the point again.
vs 8
So here's the fulcrum verse. It's not enough to be physical children in the human lines that have been used by God (Abraham, the Patriarchs etc). You also have to be born into the promise of God. God made this clear through Abraham - who had two children, but the promises to Abraham would only come through Isaac.
vs 9
Ie that it had to come out of Sarah, not Hagar.
vs 10
This is a really novel argument, which we won't get into today. But it starts by pointing out that, while Abraham's children were born years apart, Isaac's kids were conceived at the same time, and yet were able to be split into "of promise" and "not of promise".
An interesting thing to consider, perhaps, is how God is prepared to shut off so many people from his promises at the time of their making. Whole nations are symbolically cut off from God in these times of the Patriarchs, after all.
For this sort of buildup, it's obvious that Paul is coming up to a new point that he's serious about.
vs 2
Considering the positive news that he's just written, this seems a little out of kilter. What could make him so upset?
vs 3
Crazy verse numbering in fine tradition here.
This is a big wish - Paul is prepared to go to hell for his people. But I guess, while this is a shocking thing to say, is it any more than what Christ was prepared to do for us - separate himself from God for our sakes?
vs 4
Perhaps when we read this, we think 'was' would be more appropriate. But I think that's the whole point that Paul is making - these promises were all made to Israel. Now, that doesn't mean for a second that I don't think they haven't come to fulfilment in Christ. I still firmly believe that Christ is the only way to God. Adoption? Christ. Law? Christ. Promises? Christ, Christ and Christ.
What upsets Paul, I think, is that the Jewish people overall seem to have not taken up the answer to the promises made to them by God, while gentiles seem to take their place in the Kingdom.
What is this in answer to? I don't know. It doesn't seem to flow naturally from the last point. Perhaps there were issues regarding Jews and gentiles in Rome.
vs 5
Overall they have been blessed a lot. This makes it all the more sad when they, who have been blessed, and have been the receivers of so much from God directly as his special people, have now turned their backs on him.
vs 6
This verse is the real clincher for me. Well, this one (written rather ambiguously) and the following verses. My reading of this verse, considering what follows, is this: "Israel is made up of more than just those who are born physically of the twelve tribes".
The reason Paul wants to make this clear is because the challenge could be made that God failed in his words and promises to Israel, because they have failed to take up his promises. Paul says, "No - this is only true if you don't understand what Israel is."
Of course, you could also read this more literally, and say "there are those who are born of Israel, but who then went off and married outside of Israel, and so they're not considered of Israel anymore". But I would struggle to see how that relates to Paul's greater point.
vs 7
Again, those Jews who call themselves children of Abraham are not alone the children of Abraham. Paul is not talking about Ishmael and his descendents either. Well, in a way he is, but typologically, not merely literally.
Of course, you can read it only literally, but I think you would then be missing the point again.
vs 8
So here's the fulcrum verse. It's not enough to be physical children in the human lines that have been used by God (Abraham, the Patriarchs etc). You also have to be born into the promise of God. God made this clear through Abraham - who had two children, but the promises to Abraham would only come through Isaac.
vs 9
Ie that it had to come out of Sarah, not Hagar.
vs 10
This is a really novel argument, which we won't get into today. But it starts by pointing out that, while Abraham's children were born years apart, Isaac's kids were conceived at the same time, and yet were able to be split into "of promise" and "not of promise".
An interesting thing to consider, perhaps, is how God is prepared to shut off so many people from his promises at the time of their making. Whole nations are symbolically cut off from God in these times of the Patriarchs, after all.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Romans chapter 8
vs 31
Again, the wording here is somewhat misleading. Of course people and forces can still be against us. The question is firstly rhetorical, and secondly it seeks to intimate that no matter who is against us, if God is for us, then their againstness is worthless in comparison. It is not that as Christians we will not suffer any opposition. Indeed, Christ promised we would! But instead it is that such opposition is nothing compared to the support we have from God. However, when that support doesn't happen in time with the actions we are taking, it can seem like we are being overcome. Something to watch out for. The key is to have faith that God will overcome, in his time. Even if that means at the end of time, which pretty much can mean that you'll never see the particular opposition you're facing overcome in your lifetime.
vs 32
If God has given up his most treasured possession, his son, the expectation is that he would then give up anything for us. This logic is not 100% infallible. After all, if I give up my most expensive possession to purchase something, it could stand to reason that the sum of all my other possessions is worth more than the most valuable one on its own. Or it could even be that once I have made such a large sacrifice for something, I am not prepared to make yet another sacrifice of that size to keep it, preferring to keep what I already have.
But this is to think materially, and not relationally. The fact is that humans have regularly in the past sacrificed all their possessions for the sake of relationships, especially family relationships. God here is expressing his divine nature of relationship in being prepared to make ultimate sacrifices for the benefit of his relationship with humanity.
vs 33
If it is God who justifies, then there is no one else who can bring charge. Satan is of course at the top of the list, being "the accuser". But even he can't charge us, because we have already been made righteous by God.
vs 34
There is none who can condemn us when our justification comes from so high a source. Not only are we put in the right by God's action of sacrificing his son, but his son now lives again and stands at God's right hand, forever speaking on our behalf and putting himself up as the reason for our rescue.
vs 35
Since all the other questions asked so far have been basically answered "nothing, no one, never" we can only assume that Paul is going down the same road with this question. But this is at least on a different tac. The first questions were about our situation, our status as redeemed, and whether that could be rocked by condemnation or accusation. But now Paul takes it straight to the heart of God, and asks whether anything can separate us from that love which was shown in Christ Jesus. The suggested things could basically be shown as sufferings through which Christians had to persevere.
vs 36
Paul even backs up this claim, showing by quoting scripture that these things are an assurity for us as Christians. While in the first instance we may think that Psalm 44 is talking about the Messiah, and maybe rightly, Paul is in fact comparing the life of the Christian to that suffering.
vs 37
But to Paul, the Christian life is one of battle, but also of conquest. These difficulties are faced, and overcome. Not, might I point out, by us. They are in fact overcome through Christ. But since Christ has overcome them, we need not fear them. We will still suffer them, but they are as the blows of a defeated enemy - while still painful, even deadly, we can rest assured the war is won.
Persecution, then, is like a minefield. Set during war to cause damage and mayhem and casualties. Even when the war is won, the mines don't turn off and start sprouting flowers. If you step on one years, even decades after the war is over, it will still blow your legs off. But the people who planted them (the bad guys of course) have been defeated, and the process of removing landmines can take place. But that is a long and slow and dangerous process.
vs 38-39
This is one of the most obvious verses for showing the assurance that we can have in our salvation through Christ. If there is nothing that can separate us from the love that God has for us through Christ (that is our salvation - God might love his creation, and all people, but the love through Christ is surely salvation), then we can be assured that this love is never doomed.
There is however a logical problem, and a question of the wording.
The logical problem is this - if nothing can separate us from the love of God, does that mean God can't do it? Can God not choose to drop us out of his hands as he wills it? This is a very similar question to that in Hebrews about it being impossible for God to lie. The idea that God cannot do something is anathema to the idea of God's omnipotence. Usually I find it sufficient to write these questions off against a finite understanding of omnipotence, a concept that we can only pretend to understand. That's not a very satisfying answer, though, is it? I then sometimes go further to state that God is God even over logic, and that laws (even logical laws) don't apply to God, and that therefore paradox can exist in the Godhead and his actions. Again, not exactly satisfying, but it's difficult to argue against.
The second question regards our own ability to end this relationship. While it might not be possible for any external forces to separate us from the love that is our salvation, is it possible for us as humans to reject it? Calvinists I suppose say no - I am guessing this would be part of the idea of irresistable grace. I will say that this verse in its wording can be read to support that we cannot reject it - the idea that nothing in all creation can do it does in a way include humanity, what with us being creatures and all.
I think the question is an interesting one. As Christians, we can so easily get caught up in the "education is salvation" argument which is so totally flawed - it's the one that goes "if you teach people the truth, they will have no option but to accept it". This is an unfortunate load of complete bollocks and chips. It is from this argument that we have the "teach people more about their enemies, and they will see that they are just people like them, and they won't hate them anymore" - an argument that disregards the countless times someone has learned the innermost secrets about their enemies for the purpose of crushing them all the more heartily. So Christians make the same argument, saying "If people only really understood their predicament, really understood what was on the line with salvation, sin, hell and eternity, then they would choose Jesus and be saved!" Bull. This assumes that all there is to decision making is some sort of rational process that can be guided by logic. This is saying that if we knew it all, then there wouldn't be a decision to make, because the answer is so obvious.
It's just not so.
This is not flicking a switch. It is a relationship. And people are not just logical binary numbercrunchers. They have minds, but they also have hearts, passions, and feelings. I fully believe that someone could know God exists without a shadow of doubt, understand fully the grace-through-faith principle, realise the enormity of eternity and see what is on the line, and yet still decide that they did not want to crown God as Lord of their existence. While I don't usually credit Satan with super-branium capacity, I'd give him at least this much. And if you have to understand eternity before you can make an informed decision about salvation, then we're all doomed, aren't we?
Again, the wording here is somewhat misleading. Of course people and forces can still be against us. The question is firstly rhetorical, and secondly it seeks to intimate that no matter who is against us, if God is for us, then their againstness is worthless in comparison. It is not that as Christians we will not suffer any opposition. Indeed, Christ promised we would! But instead it is that such opposition is nothing compared to the support we have from God. However, when that support doesn't happen in time with the actions we are taking, it can seem like we are being overcome. Something to watch out for. The key is to have faith that God will overcome, in his time. Even if that means at the end of time, which pretty much can mean that you'll never see the particular opposition you're facing overcome in your lifetime.
vs 32
If God has given up his most treasured possession, his son, the expectation is that he would then give up anything for us. This logic is not 100% infallible. After all, if I give up my most expensive possession to purchase something, it could stand to reason that the sum of all my other possessions is worth more than the most valuable one on its own. Or it could even be that once I have made such a large sacrifice for something, I am not prepared to make yet another sacrifice of that size to keep it, preferring to keep what I already have.
But this is to think materially, and not relationally. The fact is that humans have regularly in the past sacrificed all their possessions for the sake of relationships, especially family relationships. God here is expressing his divine nature of relationship in being prepared to make ultimate sacrifices for the benefit of his relationship with humanity.
vs 33
If it is God who justifies, then there is no one else who can bring charge. Satan is of course at the top of the list, being "the accuser". But even he can't charge us, because we have already been made righteous by God.
vs 34
There is none who can condemn us when our justification comes from so high a source. Not only are we put in the right by God's action of sacrificing his son, but his son now lives again and stands at God's right hand, forever speaking on our behalf and putting himself up as the reason for our rescue.
vs 35
Since all the other questions asked so far have been basically answered "nothing, no one, never" we can only assume that Paul is going down the same road with this question. But this is at least on a different tac. The first questions were about our situation, our status as redeemed, and whether that could be rocked by condemnation or accusation. But now Paul takes it straight to the heart of God, and asks whether anything can separate us from that love which was shown in Christ Jesus. The suggested things could basically be shown as sufferings through which Christians had to persevere.
vs 36
Paul even backs up this claim, showing by quoting scripture that these things are an assurity for us as Christians. While in the first instance we may think that Psalm 44 is talking about the Messiah, and maybe rightly, Paul is in fact comparing the life of the Christian to that suffering.
vs 37
But to Paul, the Christian life is one of battle, but also of conquest. These difficulties are faced, and overcome. Not, might I point out, by us. They are in fact overcome through Christ. But since Christ has overcome them, we need not fear them. We will still suffer them, but they are as the blows of a defeated enemy - while still painful, even deadly, we can rest assured the war is won.
Persecution, then, is like a minefield. Set during war to cause damage and mayhem and casualties. Even when the war is won, the mines don't turn off and start sprouting flowers. If you step on one years, even decades after the war is over, it will still blow your legs off. But the people who planted them (the bad guys of course) have been defeated, and the process of removing landmines can take place. But that is a long and slow and dangerous process.
vs 38-39
This is one of the most obvious verses for showing the assurance that we can have in our salvation through Christ. If there is nothing that can separate us from the love that God has for us through Christ (that is our salvation - God might love his creation, and all people, but the love through Christ is surely salvation), then we can be assured that this love is never doomed.
There is however a logical problem, and a question of the wording.
The logical problem is this - if nothing can separate us from the love of God, does that mean God can't do it? Can God not choose to drop us out of his hands as he wills it? This is a very similar question to that in Hebrews about it being impossible for God to lie. The idea that God cannot do something is anathema to the idea of God's omnipotence. Usually I find it sufficient to write these questions off against a finite understanding of omnipotence, a concept that we can only pretend to understand. That's not a very satisfying answer, though, is it? I then sometimes go further to state that God is God even over logic, and that laws (even logical laws) don't apply to God, and that therefore paradox can exist in the Godhead and his actions. Again, not exactly satisfying, but it's difficult to argue against.
The second question regards our own ability to end this relationship. While it might not be possible for any external forces to separate us from the love that is our salvation, is it possible for us as humans to reject it? Calvinists I suppose say no - I am guessing this would be part of the idea of irresistable grace. I will say that this verse in its wording can be read to support that we cannot reject it - the idea that nothing in all creation can do it does in a way include humanity, what with us being creatures and all.
I think the question is an interesting one. As Christians, we can so easily get caught up in the "education is salvation" argument which is so totally flawed - it's the one that goes "if you teach people the truth, they will have no option but to accept it". This is an unfortunate load of complete bollocks and chips. It is from this argument that we have the "teach people more about their enemies, and they will see that they are just people like them, and they won't hate them anymore" - an argument that disregards the countless times someone has learned the innermost secrets about their enemies for the purpose of crushing them all the more heartily. So Christians make the same argument, saying "If people only really understood their predicament, really understood what was on the line with salvation, sin, hell and eternity, then they would choose Jesus and be saved!" Bull. This assumes that all there is to decision making is some sort of rational process that can be guided by logic. This is saying that if we knew it all, then there wouldn't be a decision to make, because the answer is so obvious.
It's just not so.
This is not flicking a switch. It is a relationship. And people are not just logical binary numbercrunchers. They have minds, but they also have hearts, passions, and feelings. I fully believe that someone could know God exists without a shadow of doubt, understand fully the grace-through-faith principle, realise the enormity of eternity and see what is on the line, and yet still decide that they did not want to crown God as Lord of their existence. While I don't usually credit Satan with super-branium capacity, I'd give him at least this much. And if you have to understand eternity before you can make an informed decision about salvation, then we're all doomed, aren't we?
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Romans chapter 8
Ok, so there's been a slight hiatus while I've been at GenCon. I didn't have access to a computer there. Back to it now!
vs 20
So God built-in a frustration in his creation. Well, built-in may not be the best term. That depends on how you think God acted with regards to foreknowledge of sin. I mean, did God create the universe as perfect and then let sin break it, and then subject it to frustration? Or was that frustration built-in in the the foreknowledge that sin was coming? Who can say.
The point being that creation has been bound up and prevented from doing what it ought.
And this has been done in hope. In hope of what? Well, the next verse will tell us. I hope.
vs 21
Creation is meant to enjoy the freedom and glory of those whom God has adopted. Of course, we are subject to the same frustration - we can't fully enjoy that freedom or glory yet either. So creation waits until it is freed from bondage to the decay that came from sin. Think about that - sin is so powerful, not only did it cause death in us, separation from God, but also broke the universe and made it start spiralling into a death of its own.
However, creation shares a hope with us. It will be freed from bondage and brought into glory. So does creation die first and get remade, as most of God's children do? Or does it get renewed, a theory that seems to appeal to the green-hearted recycling culture that much of modern Christianity has adopted? This verse alone doesn't tell us enough about that. Sufficed to say that we have hope, and so does it.
vs 22
So it has therefore been in expectation of something coming.
vs 23
And so are we expecting something - some more final mark of our adoption, which comes when our bodies are redeemed. With all the talk in chapter 7 about the sinful nature, I wonder if Paul isn't talking about our bodies being redeemed along the lines of cleansed of the sinful nature, so that we can be in true union with God. Or perhaps he is talking more about the cleansing of creation, because our bodies are part of that creation. Of course, our minds, hearts and souls are too. The idea of creation is not a merely materialist one.
vs 24
This verse seems a little forced in its situation. If there were a question about hope being posed, then it would seem a far more reasonable thing to say. But it seems out of place here. Nevertheless, it holds true in what it says - hope that is seen is not hope. Compare this definition with that of faith in Hebrews 11, and I think we have two ideas being described with different words. I think what the writer to the Hebrews calls "faith", Paul calls "hope".
vs 25
Although I've read these words many times, for the first time the word 'patiently' has jumped out at me. How patient am I for the return of Christ or my union with God? To be honest, I don't live waiting patiently for the fruit of my hope to come. I yearn for it. I never thought that was wrong. Indeed, Paul seems to yearn for it himself in other letters. So why the patience here? Perhaps it is in the context of our inability to do anything to hasten its coming.
vs 26
In the same way as what? I think Paul is harkening back to the groaning of creation, the groaning of ourselves, and now the groaning of the Spirit. Which is interesting, because if those three groans are linked, and this third groan takes on the meaning of the first two - almost a creaking under pressure of giving way to allow the new to flood forth - then in fact the Spirit's intercessions are far more pointed than I have originally thought. I always thought that groan here was just a noise that words couldn't express. Some sort of holy talk that we can't discern. But in fact, in the same way that a groaning plank is expressing its displeasure at being overloaded and preparing to break, the groaning Spirit of God expresses the weight of our prayers to him, which perhaps inevitably are calling for liberation from death and decay.
vs 27
So in essence, we can't screw up in our prayers and alienate ourselves from God, because he searches the hearts of us, and the mind of the Spirit so that our hearts, which even chapter 7 says want to do God's will, can be brought into line with God's will.
vs 28
What a great and misunderstood promise. This doesn't change anything that has happened to us, and doesn't prevent bad, horrible, painful things from happening. It doesn't stop us asking why, and it doesn't stop us from hurting or feeling bad or detached from God. Good in this sense is something we almost cannot understand, because it is so far removed from what we think of as good. We think of good as enjoyable, pleasant, nice. We don't think of those things that cause pain, suffering, anguish, hurt, embarrassment, loss, grief, or other bad things as good. And yet they continue to happen to us. This must mean that good is not intrinsic to pleasantness and enjoyment, contentment or happiness. Good exists in sadness and pain. If it didn't, then this verse would be a lie.
vs 29
And the image of God's Son is not one that exists without pain, torment, separation, loss and grief. I know that I personally have very much separated my Christianity from its roots of suffering. That can't be healthy.
vs 30
It is not pleasure, enjoyment, niceness or happiness that we are called to, but justification, and glorification. With those will come joy, no doubt, but of an entirely different nature to happiness.
vs 20
So God built-in a frustration in his creation. Well, built-in may not be the best term. That depends on how you think God acted with regards to foreknowledge of sin. I mean, did God create the universe as perfect and then let sin break it, and then subject it to frustration? Or was that frustration built-in in the the foreknowledge that sin was coming? Who can say.
The point being that creation has been bound up and prevented from doing what it ought.
And this has been done in hope. In hope of what? Well, the next verse will tell us. I hope.
vs 21
Creation is meant to enjoy the freedom and glory of those whom God has adopted. Of course, we are subject to the same frustration - we can't fully enjoy that freedom or glory yet either. So creation waits until it is freed from bondage to the decay that came from sin. Think about that - sin is so powerful, not only did it cause death in us, separation from God, but also broke the universe and made it start spiralling into a death of its own.
However, creation shares a hope with us. It will be freed from bondage and brought into glory. So does creation die first and get remade, as most of God's children do? Or does it get renewed, a theory that seems to appeal to the green-hearted recycling culture that much of modern Christianity has adopted? This verse alone doesn't tell us enough about that. Sufficed to say that we have hope, and so does it.
vs 22
So it has therefore been in expectation of something coming.
vs 23
And so are we expecting something - some more final mark of our adoption, which comes when our bodies are redeemed. With all the talk in chapter 7 about the sinful nature, I wonder if Paul isn't talking about our bodies being redeemed along the lines of cleansed of the sinful nature, so that we can be in true union with God. Or perhaps he is talking more about the cleansing of creation, because our bodies are part of that creation. Of course, our minds, hearts and souls are too. The idea of creation is not a merely materialist one.
vs 24
This verse seems a little forced in its situation. If there were a question about hope being posed, then it would seem a far more reasonable thing to say. But it seems out of place here. Nevertheless, it holds true in what it says - hope that is seen is not hope. Compare this definition with that of faith in Hebrews 11, and I think we have two ideas being described with different words. I think what the writer to the Hebrews calls "faith", Paul calls "hope".
vs 25
Although I've read these words many times, for the first time the word 'patiently' has jumped out at me. How patient am I for the return of Christ or my union with God? To be honest, I don't live waiting patiently for the fruit of my hope to come. I yearn for it. I never thought that was wrong. Indeed, Paul seems to yearn for it himself in other letters. So why the patience here? Perhaps it is in the context of our inability to do anything to hasten its coming.
vs 26
In the same way as what? I think Paul is harkening back to the groaning of creation, the groaning of ourselves, and now the groaning of the Spirit. Which is interesting, because if those three groans are linked, and this third groan takes on the meaning of the first two - almost a creaking under pressure of giving way to allow the new to flood forth - then in fact the Spirit's intercessions are far more pointed than I have originally thought. I always thought that groan here was just a noise that words couldn't express. Some sort of holy talk that we can't discern. But in fact, in the same way that a groaning plank is expressing its displeasure at being overloaded and preparing to break, the groaning Spirit of God expresses the weight of our prayers to him, which perhaps inevitably are calling for liberation from death and decay.
vs 27
So in essence, we can't screw up in our prayers and alienate ourselves from God, because he searches the hearts of us, and the mind of the Spirit so that our hearts, which even chapter 7 says want to do God's will, can be brought into line with God's will.
vs 28
What a great and misunderstood promise. This doesn't change anything that has happened to us, and doesn't prevent bad, horrible, painful things from happening. It doesn't stop us asking why, and it doesn't stop us from hurting or feeling bad or detached from God. Good in this sense is something we almost cannot understand, because it is so far removed from what we think of as good. We think of good as enjoyable, pleasant, nice. We don't think of those things that cause pain, suffering, anguish, hurt, embarrassment, loss, grief, or other bad things as good. And yet they continue to happen to us. This must mean that good is not intrinsic to pleasantness and enjoyment, contentment or happiness. Good exists in sadness and pain. If it didn't, then this verse would be a lie.
vs 29
And the image of God's Son is not one that exists without pain, torment, separation, loss and grief. I know that I personally have very much separated my Christianity from its roots of suffering. That can't be healthy.
vs 30
It is not pleasure, enjoyment, niceness or happiness that we are called to, but justification, and glorification. With those will come joy, no doubt, but of an entirely different nature to happiness.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Romans chapter 8
vs 11
Fairly convoluted in it's wording, but if God raised Christ, then surely he will raise those who belong to Christ and are marked with his Spirit. The resurrection hope I was talking about yesterday.
vs 12
Even after coming this far through Romans, the idea of sin being a master, of us being a slave to sin, and of sin requiring things of us in an obligatory way, seems so foreign to our culture. Sin has so much become an empowerment, a proof of freedom, or at the least something that we choose and control.
vs 13
So since the sinful nature promises us nothing but death, and death is a bad thing, we shouldn't feel obliged to give into it. Rather, we should feel an obligation to the Spirit to put our sinful deeds to death, because the Spirit promises us life, which is a good thing.
vs 14
Here we begin to see the idea of adoption - the adoption of Christians into God's family. Family is a strong relationship, and is very meaningful - probably more meaningful back then than now. The support structures, care, responsibilities, and inheritance that come with family are all represented here I think.
vs 15
Now, you may think that this is contrary to the earlier passage, which says in fact we are slaves to righteousness. I'm not sure how other commentators deal with this, but I will point this out - that adoption back then was very different to adoption now. I think it was much rarer that people adopted little babies in order to have a baby to love. If your wife wasn't producing a child, you could just divorce her and get another one after all. No, people would adopt young, able, strong boys who they knew they could pass on the inheritance of their family to. This often meant adopting slaves, because the slave had been with the family, knew the situation and the responsibilities, and had a closer bond than just any child.
So we might be slaves to righteousness, in order that we might be sons of God. The TNIV has a nice little note about how adoption to 'sonship' means taking the place as a male heir - the idea being that both brothers and sisters in Christ can become heirs of God.
vs 16
So the Spirit of God in us is a mark of our adoption.
vs 17
Verse 17 is a link verse between the two ideas of adoption and heirship, and suffering. The fact that we must be co-heirs stands to reason - God already has a Son in Jesus. What is interesting, then, is that even though his Spirit within us marks us as children of God, Paul goes on to state that a pre-condition of sharing in Christ's glory is that we share in his sufferings.
vs 18
And this stands to reason - temporal suffering surely must take a back seat to eternal glory.
vs 19
Why is the creation suddenly involved? I have no idea. I think that seems a little bit of an odd movement of this passage. Perhaps it is an idea that suffering is only a function of this creation - and that the new creation will not engender suffering.
Fairly convoluted in it's wording, but if God raised Christ, then surely he will raise those who belong to Christ and are marked with his Spirit. The resurrection hope I was talking about yesterday.
vs 12
Even after coming this far through Romans, the idea of sin being a master, of us being a slave to sin, and of sin requiring things of us in an obligatory way, seems so foreign to our culture. Sin has so much become an empowerment, a proof of freedom, or at the least something that we choose and control.
vs 13
So since the sinful nature promises us nothing but death, and death is a bad thing, we shouldn't feel obliged to give into it. Rather, we should feel an obligation to the Spirit to put our sinful deeds to death, because the Spirit promises us life, which is a good thing.
vs 14
Here we begin to see the idea of adoption - the adoption of Christians into God's family. Family is a strong relationship, and is very meaningful - probably more meaningful back then than now. The support structures, care, responsibilities, and inheritance that come with family are all represented here I think.
vs 15
Now, you may think that this is contrary to the earlier passage, which says in fact we are slaves to righteousness. I'm not sure how other commentators deal with this, but I will point this out - that adoption back then was very different to adoption now. I think it was much rarer that people adopted little babies in order to have a baby to love. If your wife wasn't producing a child, you could just divorce her and get another one after all. No, people would adopt young, able, strong boys who they knew they could pass on the inheritance of their family to. This often meant adopting slaves, because the slave had been with the family, knew the situation and the responsibilities, and had a closer bond than just any child.
So we might be slaves to righteousness, in order that we might be sons of God. The TNIV has a nice little note about how adoption to 'sonship' means taking the place as a male heir - the idea being that both brothers and sisters in Christ can become heirs of God.
vs 16
So the Spirit of God in us is a mark of our adoption.
vs 17
Verse 17 is a link verse between the two ideas of adoption and heirship, and suffering. The fact that we must be co-heirs stands to reason - God already has a Son in Jesus. What is interesting, then, is that even though his Spirit within us marks us as children of God, Paul goes on to state that a pre-condition of sharing in Christ's glory is that we share in his sufferings.
vs 18
And this stands to reason - temporal suffering surely must take a back seat to eternal glory.
vs 19
Why is the creation suddenly involved? I have no idea. I think that seems a little bit of an odd movement of this passage. Perhaps it is an idea that suffering is only a function of this creation - and that the new creation will not engender suffering.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Romans chapter 8
vs 1
This is an interesting development. The verse and chapter start with 'Therefore', but Paul actually goes on to explain why there is no condemnation in verse two, which starts with 'because'. This makes me wonder whether there 'Therefore' is there for the reason we usually think the "therefore is there for" - harkening back to the previous points. Apparently, though, the word in chapter 8 verse 1 is not the same word as is used in, say, 12:1 (which has to be one of the verses most preached on in the universe). Ara (used here) is almost always translated as 'then' or 'so then', whereas oun (used in 12:1) is more 'therefore' (but also lots of 'then') - but the meaning has included a more "consequently, these things being so, accordingly" - whereas ara is more "so then, wherefore" (although there is a note that it comes fom the root airo which supposedly lends it an idea of drawing to a conclusion).
It's one worthy of more pondering and questioning.
Anyway, what is clear from this verse is that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
vs 2
Two things jump out at me here. Firstly, the interesting thing that the Spirit is still a 'law'. So it's not completely disorganised. But it's instead organised towards giving life, rather than death. I do wonder though if Paul would have put law in quotation marks if they existed in greek.
Secondly, Paul has swapped from his "I" in chapter seven to "you" (or us) in chapter eight.
vs 3
Another long verse.
Paul says that the law (Law law?) was weakened by the sinful nature. Isn't that an interesting way of putting it! Of course, there's nothing wrong with accepting that the Law was weakened (or weakenable) if you accept that it was never meant to be perfect forever in the first place - that it was designed only to point out the sinfulness of humanity, and even of God's chosen people.
But God isn't powerless or weakened by sin. Rather, he can in fact overcome any obstacle to fulfil his purposes. And he did this through a human/god sacrifice. It's interesting that Christ becomes human so that sin is condemned and punished in humanity's mould.
Sent as a sin offering, of course, because this is in accordance with the Law.
vs 4
Now here's a thing - Christ's sacrifice as a sin offering allows the requirements in the law to be righteous to be met by us completely. It's not because we live a certain way (although the reading of the verse might suggest that) - rather, read "who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit" as "by faith". So that lifestyle typifies, if you like, the life of one who lives by faith. And Christ's death in turn converts our faith credits into righteousness.
vs 5
Here we're getting back into some dualistic type language, with the talk of the mind. We shouldn't be afraid of this, though, because Paul cannot possibly be making dualist claims like "as long as your mind is clean, your body can do whatever it wants". He's already tied the mind and body together in chapter 7, and Jesus himself ensures we don't think that anyone has a righteous mind.
I wonder if there is anything in the order that Paul puts it - he puts the living before the mind. I think we would normally say that mind comes first, then action. But Paul has written "those who live a certain way are those who have their minds set that way". Probably in fact there is no causality in this statement, which is in itself a statement.
vs 6
So we are in fact back to control. This verse alone would suggest that humanity's mind is not free - that it is always controlled either by one or the other. But is there freedom to choose between? Possibly not - after all, it is Christ who frees the mind from sin, not the person. But then, if you see freedom as subjective, then slavery to life is freedom from death.
vs 7-8
Here we see the lack of freedom of the mind controlled by sin. It cannot possibly do what God's Law requires. They cannot please God.
Verse 8 is powerful. Romans 8:8 is worth memorising, I think.
It's not without its problems though. God has used sinful people many times in Old and New Testaments to do his will. Well, actually, that's arguable. It depends how you define "will", doesn't it - take Judas for example. There was a prophecy that someone had to betray the Son of Man. Judas ended up being that man.
I know some people split up God's will into bits - where God "wants" some things and "allows" other things. So God wants all people to come to him, but allows people to decide not to follow his ways and so end up in hell. Of course, if you believe that God wants to send some people to hell and has predetermined that they will go there, then this doesn't apply to you. Alternatively, if you believe there is an existant tension between God's pre-determination and people's decisions then you just have to suffer the apparent paradoxical quandary here - often by simply stating that there is no paradox (I'm fine with that, by the way - no criticism here).
But others think that dividing God's will is silly. They say everything happens under God's will, and you've got to accept that and also accept that you may not see the big picture behind it. So yes, people go to hell, and that is God's will. He designed it that way, after all. The basic principle being that God doesn't need to explain himself to us - that therefore perfection and goodness are defined as "God", not as intrinsic and then God has to somehow 'live up to them'.
Of course, in holding that view you either have to separate God's will from his desires, or you have to say that (in the case of Romans 8:8) that God is pleased by being unable to be pleased by those who are controlled by the sinful nature (remembering that ultimately God has authority over the sinful nature too). So God can therefore use someone to fulfil his will, and at the same time not be pleased with them.
vs 9
The Spirit here is shown to be a formal declaration of your belonging to Christ. Without it, you are not one of Christ's people. However, I will point out that, according to these verses anyway, the only way of telling if someone is in possession of the Spirit living in them is that they are not controlled by the sinful nature. There's no 'litmus test' provided to see if you've got the Spirit of God living you. That's the closest thing in chapter 8 that comes to it.
vs 10
This isn't a litmus test (well, that's not true - it is the ultimate litmus test, because if you die and you don't end up in heaven, you obviously didn't have the Spirit of God in you). This is really a statement of fact about the benefit of having the Spirit of Christ in you. Note that you will still die (Paul doesn't even mention the Parousia here - interesting) that you will live. It's a resurrection hope that outlives death.
This is an interesting development. The verse and chapter start with 'Therefore', but Paul actually goes on to explain why there is no condemnation in verse two, which starts with 'because'. This makes me wonder whether there 'Therefore' is there for the reason we usually think the "therefore is there for" - harkening back to the previous points. Apparently, though, the word in chapter 8 verse 1 is not the same word as is used in, say, 12:1 (which has to be one of the verses most preached on in the universe). Ara (used here) is almost always translated as 'then' or 'so then', whereas oun (used in 12:1) is more 'therefore' (but also lots of 'then') - but the meaning has included a more "consequently, these things being so, accordingly" - whereas ara is more "so then, wherefore" (although there is a note that it comes fom the root airo which supposedly lends it an idea of drawing to a conclusion).
It's one worthy of more pondering and questioning.
Anyway, what is clear from this verse is that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
vs 2
Two things jump out at me here. Firstly, the interesting thing that the Spirit is still a 'law'. So it's not completely disorganised. But it's instead organised towards giving life, rather than death. I do wonder though if Paul would have put law in quotation marks if they existed in greek.
Secondly, Paul has swapped from his "I" in chapter seven to "you" (or us) in chapter eight.
vs 3
Another long verse.
Paul says that the law (Law law?) was weakened by the sinful nature. Isn't that an interesting way of putting it! Of course, there's nothing wrong with accepting that the Law was weakened (or weakenable) if you accept that it was never meant to be perfect forever in the first place - that it was designed only to point out the sinfulness of humanity, and even of God's chosen people.
But God isn't powerless or weakened by sin. Rather, he can in fact overcome any obstacle to fulfil his purposes. And he did this through a human/god sacrifice. It's interesting that Christ becomes human so that sin is condemned and punished in humanity's mould.
Sent as a sin offering, of course, because this is in accordance with the Law.
vs 4
Now here's a thing - Christ's sacrifice as a sin offering allows the requirements in the law to be righteous to be met by us completely. It's not because we live a certain way (although the reading of the verse might suggest that) - rather, read "who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit" as "by faith". So that lifestyle typifies, if you like, the life of one who lives by faith. And Christ's death in turn converts our faith credits into righteousness.
vs 5
Here we're getting back into some dualistic type language, with the talk of the mind. We shouldn't be afraid of this, though, because Paul cannot possibly be making dualist claims like "as long as your mind is clean, your body can do whatever it wants". He's already tied the mind and body together in chapter 7, and Jesus himself ensures we don't think that anyone has a righteous mind.
I wonder if there is anything in the order that Paul puts it - he puts the living before the mind. I think we would normally say that mind comes first, then action. But Paul has written "those who live a certain way are those who have their minds set that way". Probably in fact there is no causality in this statement, which is in itself a statement.
vs 6
So we are in fact back to control. This verse alone would suggest that humanity's mind is not free - that it is always controlled either by one or the other. But is there freedom to choose between? Possibly not - after all, it is Christ who frees the mind from sin, not the person. But then, if you see freedom as subjective, then slavery to life is freedom from death.
vs 7-8
Here we see the lack of freedom of the mind controlled by sin. It cannot possibly do what God's Law requires. They cannot please God.
Verse 8 is powerful. Romans 8:8 is worth memorising, I think.
It's not without its problems though. God has used sinful people many times in Old and New Testaments to do his will. Well, actually, that's arguable. It depends how you define "will", doesn't it - take Judas for example. There was a prophecy that someone had to betray the Son of Man. Judas ended up being that man.
I know some people split up God's will into bits - where God "wants" some things and "allows" other things. So God wants all people to come to him, but allows people to decide not to follow his ways and so end up in hell. Of course, if you believe that God wants to send some people to hell and has predetermined that they will go there, then this doesn't apply to you. Alternatively, if you believe there is an existant tension between God's pre-determination and people's decisions then you just have to suffer the apparent paradoxical quandary here - often by simply stating that there is no paradox (I'm fine with that, by the way - no criticism here).
But others think that dividing God's will is silly. They say everything happens under God's will, and you've got to accept that and also accept that you may not see the big picture behind it. So yes, people go to hell, and that is God's will. He designed it that way, after all. The basic principle being that God doesn't need to explain himself to us - that therefore perfection and goodness are defined as "God", not as intrinsic and then God has to somehow 'live up to them'.
Of course, in holding that view you either have to separate God's will from his desires, or you have to say that (in the case of Romans 8:8) that God is pleased by being unable to be pleased by those who are controlled by the sinful nature (remembering that ultimately God has authority over the sinful nature too). So God can therefore use someone to fulfil his will, and at the same time not be pleased with them.
vs 9
The Spirit here is shown to be a formal declaration of your belonging to Christ. Without it, you are not one of Christ's people. However, I will point out that, according to these verses anyway, the only way of telling if someone is in possession of the Spirit living in them is that they are not controlled by the sinful nature. There's no 'litmus test' provided to see if you've got the Spirit of God living you. That's the closest thing in chapter 8 that comes to it.
vs 10
This isn't a litmus test (well, that's not true - it is the ultimate litmus test, because if you die and you don't end up in heaven, you obviously didn't have the Spirit of God in you). This is really a statement of fact about the benefit of having the Spirit of Christ in you. Note that you will still die (Paul doesn't even mention the Parousia here - interesting) that you will live. It's a resurrection hope that outlives death.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Romans chapter 7
vs 20
Note again that this doesn't absolve Paul from his sinfulness. Over the past few chapters, sin has been somewhat personified - given actions, ambitions, cognisence. It's not an alive force though. This is just a literary device. Once again, we can't blame our sinful actions on sin, saying "sin made me do it". Well, it is true that sin makes us do things, but we have to accept that the sinful nature is part of our makeup (or perhaps more correctly in light of earlier verses, has corrupted and dirtied our makeup). So it's not the cloth that dirties things, it is the grease on the cloth. But you're still using the cloth in an attempt to clean.
vs 21
Coming near to the close of this chapter, we start to face a question that won't fully dawn until vs 25 and chapter 8 verse 1. That question is - is this description in chapter 7 a description of Paul's past life before salvation, or is it a description of his current struggles? Is this verse, with good and evil side by side, the present condition of the Christian life?
vs 22
What is the 'inner being'? In a quest against dualism, we hesitate to say 'the mind', because then we know we're going to hit a mind/body dichotomy. The problem being that in vs 23 Paul uses the word mind.
Anyway, there is some part of Paul that delights in God's law.
vs 23
I wonder if the use of the word 'law' again is a wordplay.
So now there are two laws - the law of God (also the law of the mind), and another law, the law of sin. They are at war with each other in the body of Paul. The war language is exactly the kind of language that is used in religious dualism - the idea that good and evil are at war with each other. And here indeed the battle rages - inside the body of Paul (or perhaps all believers).
Maybe Paul is using this dualistic language on purpose to show that the nature of dualism, while fundamentally flawed (God is in total control - he wins every war people put against him) is reflected in some way in the body of man, and as such it's an explaination as to why people can come to this conclusion about a spiritual battle. Because from our internal, subjective experience, there is a battle between good and evil.
vs 24
Anyone who reasonably concludes that it is impossible for them to defeat the evil in their own lives will discover this wretchedness. Perhaps one of the big worries about our culture is that people have lost the will to strive for excellence, and as such they are happy enough to compromise for being "pretty good", "better than Hitler".
vs 25
Those who desire righteousness, though, will look for a way of defeating the attacks of evil. And for Paul, he shows conclusively that Christ Jesus has the answer in defeating the body of death.
It is interesting that after showing that God has the power to save us from this body of death, he still states, in the present tense, that he has this combat ensuing - his mind is a slave to God, but his flesh a slave to sin.
Graham Marlin said the other day that the word for sinful nature/flesh has with it that connotation of physical flesh, and we can't ignore the fact that sin does have a somewhat physical and fleshly nature. I wasn't convinced at first, but after going through this passage, I think I am leaning more in that direction. Paul seems to.
Note again that this doesn't absolve Paul from his sinfulness. Over the past few chapters, sin has been somewhat personified - given actions, ambitions, cognisence. It's not an alive force though. This is just a literary device. Once again, we can't blame our sinful actions on sin, saying "sin made me do it". Well, it is true that sin makes us do things, but we have to accept that the sinful nature is part of our makeup (or perhaps more correctly in light of earlier verses, has corrupted and dirtied our makeup). So it's not the cloth that dirties things, it is the grease on the cloth. But you're still using the cloth in an attempt to clean.
vs 21
Coming near to the close of this chapter, we start to face a question that won't fully dawn until vs 25 and chapter 8 verse 1. That question is - is this description in chapter 7 a description of Paul's past life before salvation, or is it a description of his current struggles? Is this verse, with good and evil side by side, the present condition of the Christian life?
vs 22
What is the 'inner being'? In a quest against dualism, we hesitate to say 'the mind', because then we know we're going to hit a mind/body dichotomy. The problem being that in vs 23 Paul uses the word mind.
Anyway, there is some part of Paul that delights in God's law.
vs 23
I wonder if the use of the word 'law' again is a wordplay.
So now there are two laws - the law of God (also the law of the mind), and another law, the law of sin. They are at war with each other in the body of Paul. The war language is exactly the kind of language that is used in religious dualism - the idea that good and evil are at war with each other. And here indeed the battle rages - inside the body of Paul (or perhaps all believers).
Maybe Paul is using this dualistic language on purpose to show that the nature of dualism, while fundamentally flawed (God is in total control - he wins every war people put against him) is reflected in some way in the body of man, and as such it's an explaination as to why people can come to this conclusion about a spiritual battle. Because from our internal, subjective experience, there is a battle between good and evil.
vs 24
Anyone who reasonably concludes that it is impossible for them to defeat the evil in their own lives will discover this wretchedness. Perhaps one of the big worries about our culture is that people have lost the will to strive for excellence, and as such they are happy enough to compromise for being "pretty good", "better than Hitler".
vs 25
Those who desire righteousness, though, will look for a way of defeating the attacks of evil. And for Paul, he shows conclusively that Christ Jesus has the answer in defeating the body of death.
It is interesting that after showing that God has the power to save us from this body of death, he still states, in the present tense, that he has this combat ensuing - his mind is a slave to God, but his flesh a slave to sin.
Graham Marlin said the other day that the word for sinful nature/flesh has with it that connotation of physical flesh, and we can't ignore the fact that sin does have a somewhat physical and fleshly nature. I wasn't convinced at first, but after going through this passage, I think I am leaning more in that direction. Paul seems to.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Romans chapter 7
vs 13
Ok, this is one long-ass verse.
The points here seem to be that it was not the law that brought death, but sin that brought death by using the law. Sin becomes sinful, so it can be recognised as sin.
The interesting thing I find here is that sin has the power to corrupt a good thing from God. Yes, I knew that. But I hadn't really thought about it. I talk regularly about God being so powerful that he can transform an evil thing into a good thing. He doesn't just make the best of a bad situation, he actually redeems something that is evil and makes it good.
Well, this shows just how much of a redemption it is - because things started out as good, didn't they? They are only evil because sin has corrupted them. God is in fact turning things back to good.
vs 14
This obviously makes the law somewhat difficult. It's like "We know the law is for people made of titanium; but I am not made of titanium". Now, I don't want to get too deep and meaningful, but when Paul says he is sold as a slave to sin, who sold him? I think, if we think about slavery in Greek and Roman culture, the highest likelihood is that Paul sold himself into the slavery of sin.
Ouch.
vs 15
I love getting people to read these verses out in church :P
This is a very interesting concept - the concept that even a sinful human wants to do the righteous thing. But they find that they simply are incapable of doing it, but rather unwillingly find their body taking them on a wild ride of sinful activity.
This is a little too dualistic for my liking. Paul is not a dualist. But he creeps towards the line here I think. The difference being that he is not a mind/body dualist, but, if anything, a spiritual/sinful dualist. Which is more biblical. I guess the question is, does the desire to do righteousness come from us, or does it come from God?
vs 16
Ok, wait a sec. Is Paul saying that when he sins, he agrees that the law is good? Or have I read this passage wrong, and is Paul saying that his desires can be overrun by his actions, and that what he wants to do is sin, but he doesn't do it, and what he doesn't want to do is righteousness, but that's how he acts?
I don't think so. Although it might seem easier to accept that Paul found the law as good if Paul's actions were righteous, that causes more problems than it solves. Verses 18-20 make it very clear that Paul doesn't want to do evil, but ends up doing it.
So, when he does evil, why is it that the law looks good? I is it because the law is righteous, ie that Paul is using the word 'good' differently to the way he used it in chapter 5? The word here is kalos, which means everything from morally good to beautiful, to precious, to competent. It is used in Romans 12:17 when Paul says "be careful to do what is right". The word he uses in chapter 5 is agathos, which talks about things being useful, pleasant, agreeable, or honourable. But considering that agathos is used in 7:12,13,18,19 - I think Paul might allow the two terms to cross over in meaning.
Perhaps when you are evil, good just looks all the more good. Not nice, perhaps, but contrasting.
vs 17
This is a novel idea. In no way is Paul trying to divorce himself from responsibility for sin - this is not "Elvis made me do it" sort of argument here. Remembering what I was talking about earlier, it is like sin has infected and corrupted him to the point where it doesn't matter what he does, it will be tainted.
vs 18
So good obviously does dwell in him, because the desire to do good is there. But Paul is like a grease-soaked rag - the ability to clean things with a rag is there, but if it's soaked in grease, you can't help but cover everything in a black mess. The rag has lost the ability to clean.
vs 19
This constant harping at the desire to do good existing behind the evil actions is a more difficult subject than I think I've made of it so far. Paul has already made his argument in the early chapters of the book that all people are born with an inherent understanding of God and his law, built in as it were. So he believes that people know what is good, but can't do it. That is, the law (whether the written law or the law of the heart) does not enable you to keep it - it merely judges you and destroys you. But he still thinks the desire to do good is there. Is it? Genesis 6:5 makes it clear that mankind's heart and inclination was only evil all the time.
This is not an easy passage. I know that commentators have struggled with it since basically forever. So I don't feel too bad about it. But I hope I have at least expressed a little bit of the problematic idea that rises up here.
Ok, this is one long-ass verse.
The points here seem to be that it was not the law that brought death, but sin that brought death by using the law. Sin becomes sinful, so it can be recognised as sin.
The interesting thing I find here is that sin has the power to corrupt a good thing from God. Yes, I knew that. But I hadn't really thought about it. I talk regularly about God being so powerful that he can transform an evil thing into a good thing. He doesn't just make the best of a bad situation, he actually redeems something that is evil and makes it good.
Well, this shows just how much of a redemption it is - because things started out as good, didn't they? They are only evil because sin has corrupted them. God is in fact turning things back to good.
vs 14
This obviously makes the law somewhat difficult. It's like "We know the law is for people made of titanium; but I am not made of titanium". Now, I don't want to get too deep and meaningful, but when Paul says he is sold as a slave to sin, who sold him? I think, if we think about slavery in Greek and Roman culture, the highest likelihood is that Paul sold himself into the slavery of sin.
Ouch.
vs 15
I love getting people to read these verses out in church :P
This is a very interesting concept - the concept that even a sinful human wants to do the righteous thing. But they find that they simply are incapable of doing it, but rather unwillingly find their body taking them on a wild ride of sinful activity.
This is a little too dualistic for my liking. Paul is not a dualist. But he creeps towards the line here I think. The difference being that he is not a mind/body dualist, but, if anything, a spiritual/sinful dualist. Which is more biblical. I guess the question is, does the desire to do righteousness come from us, or does it come from God?
vs 16
Ok, wait a sec. Is Paul saying that when he sins, he agrees that the law is good? Or have I read this passage wrong, and is Paul saying that his desires can be overrun by his actions, and that what he wants to do is sin, but he doesn't do it, and what he doesn't want to do is righteousness, but that's how he acts?
I don't think so. Although it might seem easier to accept that Paul found the law as good if Paul's actions were righteous, that causes more problems than it solves. Verses 18-20 make it very clear that Paul doesn't want to do evil, but ends up doing it.
So, when he does evil, why is it that the law looks good? I is it because the law is righteous, ie that Paul is using the word 'good' differently to the way he used it in chapter 5? The word here is kalos, which means everything from morally good to beautiful, to precious, to competent. It is used in Romans 12:17 when Paul says "be careful to do what is right". The word he uses in chapter 5 is agathos, which talks about things being useful, pleasant, agreeable, or honourable. But considering that agathos is used in 7:12,13,18,19 - I think Paul might allow the two terms to cross over in meaning.
Perhaps when you are evil, good just looks all the more good. Not nice, perhaps, but contrasting.
vs 17
This is a novel idea. In no way is Paul trying to divorce himself from responsibility for sin - this is not "Elvis made me do it" sort of argument here. Remembering what I was talking about earlier, it is like sin has infected and corrupted him to the point where it doesn't matter what he does, it will be tainted.
vs 18
So good obviously does dwell in him, because the desire to do good is there. But Paul is like a grease-soaked rag - the ability to clean things with a rag is there, but if it's soaked in grease, you can't help but cover everything in a black mess. The rag has lost the ability to clean.
vs 19
This constant harping at the desire to do good existing behind the evil actions is a more difficult subject than I think I've made of it so far. Paul has already made his argument in the early chapters of the book that all people are born with an inherent understanding of God and his law, built in as it were. So he believes that people know what is good, but can't do it. That is, the law (whether the written law or the law of the heart) does not enable you to keep it - it merely judges you and destroys you. But he still thinks the desire to do good is there. Is it? Genesis 6:5 makes it clear that mankind's heart and inclination was only evil all the time.
This is not an easy passage. I know that commentators have struggled with it since basically forever. So I don't feel too bad about it. But I hope I have at least expressed a little bit of the problematic idea that rises up here.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Romans chapter 7
vs 1
Paul starts on a new argument here. It's not entirely new - he primed us for it earlier - but now he goes into it in detail.
The idea is that dead people are not covered by the law.
vs 2
This most obvious example is a good one, because it picks a law which directly relates to the relationship between two people.
vs 3
Having just started reading a book which gives feminist critiques the time of day, it is interesting that this verse focuses on a woman doing the wrong thing - as almost always seems the case in adultery. Men seem to just end up marrying another woman, as if polygamy is ok - but women are always adulteresses.
vs 4
In effect, Paul is saying that we do not live under the law - that God has redeemed us both from death, and by death from the law, so that instead he's got people who can serve him. Now the law is good - I think that argument happens in a few verses - but it's still interesting that God removes its weight from our shoulders and the reason is so that we can bear fruit. Almost as if the law limits what can be done by God's servants.
Which sounds pretty sensical, because laws by nature are a limiting thing.
vs 5
Again Paul primes us for another argument - that of the law arousing sin in us. But the idea is that while under law, sinful passions rise, and so we can't help but be producing only death-fruit.
vs 6
I wonder if the term "new way" is at all idiomatic - after all, Christians were called "followers of the Way" for a while. It's interesting that Paul also describes the law as a binding, from which we are released.
And just a quick thought for those scholars who don't like calling it the "Old Testament" because they think old is parochial or somehow uncool (I'm looking at you Goldingay) - Paul calls it the old way, 'cause that's what it is.
vs 7
So here we go. The concept being that without the law, we cannot recognise sin for what it is. However, just because law allows us to recognise sin, doesn't make it sinful. It would be like blaming radiation on a geiger counter. But Paul makes it clear that just because the written code is old, and is being done away with, doesn't mean it was sinful.
vs 8
It is sin that is sinful. It looks for the opportunity, and strikes at our poor sinful fleshliness. The law says "no lollipops" and suddenly all you've ever wanted was a lollipop to call your own. Sneaky.
Interestingly, Paul makes this statement about sin being dead without law. The idea that if there's no rules, then you can't break them. That may be how sin relates to law, but there's more to capital S Sin than just breaking the law (sin is about not following the rules, but it's also about disobedience, and also about missing the mark, not coming up to standard etc). However, since we're talking about law and sin and how they interact, that's a reasonable statement.
vs 9
Why is this in the first person? Paul wasn't around when the commandment was written. Is he perhaps talking about some sort of jewish Bar-Mitzvah type thing? (Mitzvah in Hebrew means commandment - I've no idea what Bar means, although I can tell you that midbar means desert.)
If we take away the first person problem for the moment, we see that there was life before law, but then when the law came, sin lived, so people died.
Now we know (and Paul knows,and he actually said earlier) that sin reigned between Adam and Moses, so there's obviously more to this beast than just simple life or death.
vs 10
Here's another curly one - Paul says that the commandment was "intended to bring life". Intended by who? If it were intended by God, and it did not happen, then isn't that like saying that God screwed up? What sort of omnipotence is that? If God wanted everything to be solved by law, he could have made that happen, right?
Perhaps again this is talking about the nature of Judaism - that in the Judaism of Paul's time, the commandments were seen as the life-giving word of God, and that this is a position thrust on them by man, not established by God. So when a Jew (like Paul) goes looking for life in the commandment, all he finds is something that instead brings death via sin.
vs 11
The idea being that sin uses the commandment to create sinful desires in order that you might then break the commandment. Just like JD in Scrubs - we want what we can't have. Of course, a large portion of the commandments hold a death penalty, so that could also be what Paul's talking about.
vs 12
It's not the law or the commandment that are evil - it is sin that is evil. They take the good thing and corrupt it, or more correctly corrupt us so that the good thing isn't good for us anymore.
Paul starts on a new argument here. It's not entirely new - he primed us for it earlier - but now he goes into it in detail.
The idea is that dead people are not covered by the law.
vs 2
This most obvious example is a good one, because it picks a law which directly relates to the relationship between two people.
vs 3
Having just started reading a book which gives feminist critiques the time of day, it is interesting that this verse focuses on a woman doing the wrong thing - as almost always seems the case in adultery. Men seem to just end up marrying another woman, as if polygamy is ok - but women are always adulteresses.
vs 4
In effect, Paul is saying that we do not live under the law - that God has redeemed us both from death, and by death from the law, so that instead he's got people who can serve him. Now the law is good - I think that argument happens in a few verses - but it's still interesting that God removes its weight from our shoulders and the reason is so that we can bear fruit. Almost as if the law limits what can be done by God's servants.
Which sounds pretty sensical, because laws by nature are a limiting thing.
vs 5
Again Paul primes us for another argument - that of the law arousing sin in us. But the idea is that while under law, sinful passions rise, and so we can't help but be producing only death-fruit.
vs 6
I wonder if the term "new way" is at all idiomatic - after all, Christians were called "followers of the Way" for a while. It's interesting that Paul also describes the law as a binding, from which we are released.
And just a quick thought for those scholars who don't like calling it the "Old Testament" because they think old is parochial or somehow uncool (I'm looking at you Goldingay) - Paul calls it the old way, 'cause that's what it is.
vs 7
So here we go. The concept being that without the law, we cannot recognise sin for what it is. However, just because law allows us to recognise sin, doesn't make it sinful. It would be like blaming radiation on a geiger counter. But Paul makes it clear that just because the written code is old, and is being done away with, doesn't mean it was sinful.
vs 8
It is sin that is sinful. It looks for the opportunity, and strikes at our poor sinful fleshliness. The law says "no lollipops" and suddenly all you've ever wanted was a lollipop to call your own. Sneaky.
Interestingly, Paul makes this statement about sin being dead without law. The idea that if there's no rules, then you can't break them. That may be how sin relates to law, but there's more to capital S Sin than just breaking the law (sin is about not following the rules, but it's also about disobedience, and also about missing the mark, not coming up to standard etc). However, since we're talking about law and sin and how they interact, that's a reasonable statement.
vs 9
Why is this in the first person? Paul wasn't around when the commandment was written. Is he perhaps talking about some sort of jewish Bar-Mitzvah type thing? (Mitzvah in Hebrew means commandment - I've no idea what Bar means, although I can tell you that midbar means desert.)
If we take away the first person problem for the moment, we see that there was life before law, but then when the law came, sin lived, so people died.
Now we know (and Paul knows,and he actually said earlier) that sin reigned between Adam and Moses, so there's obviously more to this beast than just simple life or death.
vs 10
Here's another curly one - Paul says that the commandment was "intended to bring life". Intended by who? If it were intended by God, and it did not happen, then isn't that like saying that God screwed up? What sort of omnipotence is that? If God wanted everything to be solved by law, he could have made that happen, right?
Perhaps again this is talking about the nature of Judaism - that in the Judaism of Paul's time, the commandments were seen as the life-giving word of God, and that this is a position thrust on them by man, not established by God. So when a Jew (like Paul) goes looking for life in the commandment, all he finds is something that instead brings death via sin.
vs 11
The idea being that sin uses the commandment to create sinful desires in order that you might then break the commandment. Just like JD in Scrubs - we want what we can't have. Of course, a large portion of the commandments hold a death penalty, so that could also be what Paul's talking about.
vs 12
It's not the law or the commandment that are evil - it is sin that is evil. They take the good thing and corrupt it, or more correctly corrupt us so that the good thing isn't good for us anymore.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Romans chapter 6
vs 13
Paul now begins with his language of the two powers which man can serve - sin or God. When you offer something you have to someone, and they use it for a criminal purpose, it becomes part of the crime. So if you lend a mate your car, and he goes and robs a bank, it becomes the get-away vehicle involved in a bank robbery and a bank ends up robbed.
Paul says that it's like that for sin. When we sin, we're actually offering our bodies over to sin to be an instrument involved in causing wickedness. Not that sin is a person or an entity as such. Paul treats it as one here, but I think it's more conceptual and he personifies it a bit for the sake of the argument. Which is interesting - because it means he personifies sin, but doesn't just call it Satan straight out. Satan, then, is more than just a name to put on sin's personification.
So when we sin, we're actually obeying sin and furthering the cause of wickedness. Paul wants Christians to abstain from that, and instead offer their bodies to God as an instrument in his works of righteousness. Working for the sake of a faceless concept, or working for the absolute good of a loving God... there doesn't seem to be much choice, does there?
vs 14
These 'because' statements, I always have to be careful of, because Paul has this habit of saying statement A is, because of statement B, but while that seems to fit a deductive form of reasoning, it's not always what Paul is going for.
So when Paul says that sin won't be our master, because we are under grace, not law, he is not saying (in typical logical fashion)
A) Sin is your master under Law
B) You are not under Law (you are under grace)
C) Sin is not your master.
If you think he is saying that, then please explain to me why Christian still sin, and why Paul then has to field the argument about Christians continuing to sin because they are under grace. Also explain why Paul puts sin's lack of mastery in the future tense.
I think what Paul is saying is that the new covenant of grace covers sin, whereas the old covenant of law increases sin, or highlights sin.
vs 15
This question could well be asking "If sin is only sin under the law, and we are not under the law (that is, if law makes sin sin) then since we are under grace, doesn't sin stop being sinful?"
Paul has already addressed this argument once by showing that even though the law did not exist between Adam and Moses, people still died. And I will point out that the continual death of people shows the reign of sin - that's what Paul says about that time between Adam and Moses, and well you may say it about the time between Jesus leaving and Jesus returning.
vs 16
This seems to be an expansion of Paul's statement of vs 13 - now instead of us being an instrument, we are a slave, and that slavery leads somewhere. To death, if you're a slave to sin, or to righteousness if you are a slave to obedience.
Notice over the next few verses that Paul doesn't mention anywhere the Christian's emancipation from slavery. We merely switch sides.
vs 17
Everyone serves as sin's slave, but through God's grace we can change our claim of allegiance and alter our patterns of practice to become the bondslaves of God and goodness.
vs 18
Set free from one set of slavery, to become a slave to another kind of slavery. Now this doesn't sound super glamorous, but let me put it this way - do you want to be the guy at the bottom of the ship who has a spade and has to shovel shit around all day? Or do you want to be the slave that teaches the children? Even slaves can be promoted. Do you want to be the slave that is used as a whipping boy when the owners are angry? Or do you want to be the slave that ends up inheriting the estate of the wise, kindly man?
vs 19
Paul doesn't know the Romans very well, but he seems to be able to make the assumption that they are limited by their humanity in understanding this concept any better than this, and that they used to offer themselves in wickedness. The second one is a gimmie - Chapters 1-3 proves that. The first one, I guess, is perhaps a statement of fact too - that as humans we need to compare the things of God to the things of man in order to understand them, but we inevitably fall short in doing so. It's like making a castle out of butter - you can describe a lot about a real castle by making one out of butter, but it's never going to be the same as actually seeing a castle.
vs 20
Again, do we take this as a logical statement? Can I build a theology on this verse that says "when you are sinning, God cannot use you for righteous purposes"? No, I can't, because God can change evil into good. Paul is speaking more practically - when we are sold out to sin, we don't feel the need to act righteously.
This is a really important separation that Paul has already made in passing, but needs to be understood. There are a lot of 'good' people out there who are sold out to sin. The wiccan creed, which says something hippy like "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" may be all fluffy and nice, but it's not righteous. It's possible to be a good person doing good things that help people, but to still not be righteous. Because righteousness is about being right, not being good. I'm not sure if it is as simple as all right is good, but not all good is right.
vs 21
Interesting thought - no matter how much good the things of death seem to produce (pleasure, wealth, power, the list goes on I'm sure), they still produce death.
vs 22
Interestingly, slavery to God has its own benefits, and they lead to life. I'll let you fill them in. Paul names an obvious one, though, which is holiness. I think holiness is in part the cause of the lack of popularity for righteousness. It has to be different, because it is holy. It's funny, then, that the church seeks to defy diversity, thinking that unity requires uniformity, but holiness requires difference. I'm just thinking out loud now.
vs 23
Slavery to sin reaps a wage of death. Slavery to God reaps a wage too, no doubt. All sorts of righteous and holy stuff. But it isn't eternal life. Eternal life is a gift from God, in Jesus Christ.
Paul now begins with his language of the two powers which man can serve - sin or God. When you offer something you have to someone, and they use it for a criminal purpose, it becomes part of the crime. So if you lend a mate your car, and he goes and robs a bank, it becomes the get-away vehicle involved in a bank robbery and a bank ends up robbed.
Paul says that it's like that for sin. When we sin, we're actually offering our bodies over to sin to be an instrument involved in causing wickedness. Not that sin is a person or an entity as such. Paul treats it as one here, but I think it's more conceptual and he personifies it a bit for the sake of the argument. Which is interesting - because it means he personifies sin, but doesn't just call it Satan straight out. Satan, then, is more than just a name to put on sin's personification.
So when we sin, we're actually obeying sin and furthering the cause of wickedness. Paul wants Christians to abstain from that, and instead offer their bodies to God as an instrument in his works of righteousness. Working for the sake of a faceless concept, or working for the absolute good of a loving God... there doesn't seem to be much choice, does there?
vs 14
These 'because' statements, I always have to be careful of, because Paul has this habit of saying statement A is, because of statement B, but while that seems to fit a deductive form of reasoning, it's not always what Paul is going for.
So when Paul says that sin won't be our master, because we are under grace, not law, he is not saying (in typical logical fashion)
A) Sin is your master under Law
B) You are not under Law (you are under grace)
C) Sin is not your master.
If you think he is saying that, then please explain to me why Christian still sin, and why Paul then has to field the argument about Christians continuing to sin because they are under grace. Also explain why Paul puts sin's lack of mastery in the future tense.
I think what Paul is saying is that the new covenant of grace covers sin, whereas the old covenant of law increases sin, or highlights sin.
vs 15
This question could well be asking "If sin is only sin under the law, and we are not under the law (that is, if law makes sin sin) then since we are under grace, doesn't sin stop being sinful?"
Paul has already addressed this argument once by showing that even though the law did not exist between Adam and Moses, people still died. And I will point out that the continual death of people shows the reign of sin - that's what Paul says about that time between Adam and Moses, and well you may say it about the time between Jesus leaving and Jesus returning.
vs 16
This seems to be an expansion of Paul's statement of vs 13 - now instead of us being an instrument, we are a slave, and that slavery leads somewhere. To death, if you're a slave to sin, or to righteousness if you are a slave to obedience.
Notice over the next few verses that Paul doesn't mention anywhere the Christian's emancipation from slavery. We merely switch sides.
vs 17
Everyone serves as sin's slave, but through God's grace we can change our claim of allegiance and alter our patterns of practice to become the bondslaves of God and goodness.
vs 18
Set free from one set of slavery, to become a slave to another kind of slavery. Now this doesn't sound super glamorous, but let me put it this way - do you want to be the guy at the bottom of the ship who has a spade and has to shovel shit around all day? Or do you want to be the slave that teaches the children? Even slaves can be promoted. Do you want to be the slave that is used as a whipping boy when the owners are angry? Or do you want to be the slave that ends up inheriting the estate of the wise, kindly man?
vs 19
Paul doesn't know the Romans very well, but he seems to be able to make the assumption that they are limited by their humanity in understanding this concept any better than this, and that they used to offer themselves in wickedness. The second one is a gimmie - Chapters 1-3 proves that. The first one, I guess, is perhaps a statement of fact too - that as humans we need to compare the things of God to the things of man in order to understand them, but we inevitably fall short in doing so. It's like making a castle out of butter - you can describe a lot about a real castle by making one out of butter, but it's never going to be the same as actually seeing a castle.
vs 20
Again, do we take this as a logical statement? Can I build a theology on this verse that says "when you are sinning, God cannot use you for righteous purposes"? No, I can't, because God can change evil into good. Paul is speaking more practically - when we are sold out to sin, we don't feel the need to act righteously.
This is a really important separation that Paul has already made in passing, but needs to be understood. There are a lot of 'good' people out there who are sold out to sin. The wiccan creed, which says something hippy like "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" may be all fluffy and nice, but it's not righteous. It's possible to be a good person doing good things that help people, but to still not be righteous. Because righteousness is about being right, not being good. I'm not sure if it is as simple as all right is good, but not all good is right.
vs 21
Interesting thought - no matter how much good the things of death seem to produce (pleasure, wealth, power, the list goes on I'm sure), they still produce death.
vs 22
Interestingly, slavery to God has its own benefits, and they lead to life. I'll let you fill them in. Paul names an obvious one, though, which is holiness. I think holiness is in part the cause of the lack of popularity for righteousness. It has to be different, because it is holy. It's funny, then, that the church seeks to defy diversity, thinking that unity requires uniformity, but holiness requires difference. I'm just thinking out loud now.
vs 23
Slavery to sin reaps a wage of death. Slavery to God reaps a wage too, no doubt. All sorts of righteous and holy stuff. But it isn't eternal life. Eternal life is a gift from God, in Jesus Christ.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Romans Chapter 6
vs 1
The idea being from the last chapter - that if our sin causes God's grace to become more abundant, then can there be anything wrong with sin? Shouldn't we want God's grace to be all the more abundant?
vs 2
By no means indeed! Paul makes it clear that, for the Christian, continual sin is not an option. The picture of us being dead according to sin is a strong one. Paul builds on this and explains it throughout this chapter, so I won't say too much about it now.
vs 3
So the first thing about us being dead to sin is that, because Christ died, we share in his death. We do this through baptism. Baptism is a hard thing to codify. I mean, sometimes we just view it as a symbolic thing, which in itself is nothing special. But the Bible does talk about it in a special way. Just not "this is your salvation" special. But how special it really is is not easy to gauge.
I have heard some people speak of there being much less distinction between baptism and believing back then too - because you believed, and were baptised pretty much straight away. So baptism could be seen as almost concurrent with the word believing.
vs 4
Obviously we did not die in any physical sense when we were baptised. We don't drown people. The point being that we identify with Christ, both in his death and his resurrection. In identifying with Christ in his death, we are in effect putting paid to sin, because its only power is death.
vs 5
The TNIV has a very interesting translation difference here - if anything more literal than the NIV, and following the path of the NASB - it makes it clear that we are not so much uniting with Christ in his death, but in a likeness of his death.The point being that if death unites us, then certainly life will unite us also - and so we have not only the power of the death of Christ, but also the power of his resurrection.
vs 6
KJV talks about crucifying our "old man" ... hehehe.
What exactly is the self, and the old self? What part of us is it that gets crucified with Christ? It's the sinful nature part of humanity, I guess. Unfortunately, it didn't die in any full sense when Christ was crucified. Its power was defeated, as it were, but in an atemporal sense. Which is great if you died before the cross. But for those of us living afterwards, and seeing victory but still remaining sinful, it can be a bit of a bummer.
So the point of our salvation is partly to free us from slavery - a slavery to sin, where we have no choice but to obey (or if that's too deterministic for you, we are coerced into obeying).
vs 7
Of course, sin only rules as long as you live - so when you die, sin can't disturb you or coerce you anymore. That doesn't mean that its legacy won't affect you post-death in some sort of eternal capacity, though.
vs 8
This is worded in the future tense, so I think we're still looking towards a future living with Christ at this point.
vs 9
This is of course different from Lazarus and the little girl, and anyone else Jesus raised from the dead. How Paul knows so much about the "science " of resurrection, well, I just don't know. Perhaps it has to do with reasoning that since Jesus was not alive to raise himself, and that God raised him directly, that it was an eternal thing. Then you start arguing about how much of the raise dead power that Jesus used from God, so what's the difference?
The truth is that logically you cannot deduct the reasoning from experience. The pat answer of course is that "Jesus told Paul" in that Damascus road experience where Jesus told Paul absolutely everything. Or if you're not so stuck up, then Jesus revealed it to Paul in the same way he revealed truth to him about other stuff - in a warm fuzzy spiritual way. Because the truth is, of course, that death didn't have any mastery over Jesus when he was alive the first time, because he wasn't sinful.
vs 10
Sort of the difference between a once of pay-off (contractual work?) and a long-term servant.
vs 11
Now this is where we step out of theologising, and into practical life. The thing is, that we are still sinful. We are still in frail human bodies, and we cannot escape sin in this life. But Paul wants us to drag our eternal Kingdom truth down to earth and make it a reality in the here and now. And he wants us to do that with our minds. We are to treat ourselves and each other as if we were dead to sin, and therefore free from its power. We are to live as if we are alive to Christ, that is, in the resurrection of a new life.
This is a phenomenal transformation in the life of an individual. Unfortunately, it cannot be 100% acted out in this life, and I think that bums us out and we feel like we can't do it, so we don't bother. But with this attitude, you can still win a lot of victories against sin that perhaps otherwise you would have never won.
vs 12
It's not about us defeating sin - it is about us realising that sin is a defeated foe. It still has teeth and it can bite, but it's dying. Now don't let that fool you into thinking that it is getting weaker. Wild boars have a surge of strength and deadly power before they die, and the death rattle of sin may go on for a long time. It's been rattling for 1900 odd years.
It's almost like a lot of us spend so much time in mourning over sin, that we remember it and toy with its memory, and reminisce and get all nostalgic. But we should act like sin is dead already, like going through your grandma's house and marking what you want to inherit while she's still alive. Just not so mercenary as that.
The idea being from the last chapter - that if our sin causes God's grace to become more abundant, then can there be anything wrong with sin? Shouldn't we want God's grace to be all the more abundant?
vs 2
By no means indeed! Paul makes it clear that, for the Christian, continual sin is not an option. The picture of us being dead according to sin is a strong one. Paul builds on this and explains it throughout this chapter, so I won't say too much about it now.
vs 3
So the first thing about us being dead to sin is that, because Christ died, we share in his death. We do this through baptism. Baptism is a hard thing to codify. I mean, sometimes we just view it as a symbolic thing, which in itself is nothing special. But the Bible does talk about it in a special way. Just not "this is your salvation" special. But how special it really is is not easy to gauge.
I have heard some people speak of there being much less distinction between baptism and believing back then too - because you believed, and were baptised pretty much straight away. So baptism could be seen as almost concurrent with the word believing.
vs 4
Obviously we did not die in any physical sense when we were baptised. We don't drown people. The point being that we identify with Christ, both in his death and his resurrection. In identifying with Christ in his death, we are in effect putting paid to sin, because its only power is death.
vs 5
The TNIV has a very interesting translation difference here - if anything more literal than the NIV, and following the path of the NASB - it makes it clear that we are not so much uniting with Christ in his death, but in a likeness of his death.The point being that if death unites us, then certainly life will unite us also - and so we have not only the power of the death of Christ, but also the power of his resurrection.
vs 6
KJV talks about crucifying our "old man" ... hehehe.
What exactly is the self, and the old self? What part of us is it that gets crucified with Christ? It's the sinful nature part of humanity, I guess. Unfortunately, it didn't die in any full sense when Christ was crucified. Its power was defeated, as it were, but in an atemporal sense. Which is great if you died before the cross. But for those of us living afterwards, and seeing victory but still remaining sinful, it can be a bit of a bummer.
So the point of our salvation is partly to free us from slavery - a slavery to sin, where we have no choice but to obey (or if that's too deterministic for you, we are coerced into obeying).
vs 7
Of course, sin only rules as long as you live - so when you die, sin can't disturb you or coerce you anymore. That doesn't mean that its legacy won't affect you post-death in some sort of eternal capacity, though.
vs 8
This is worded in the future tense, so I think we're still looking towards a future living with Christ at this point.
vs 9
This is of course different from Lazarus and the little girl, and anyone else Jesus raised from the dead. How Paul knows so much about the "science " of resurrection, well, I just don't know. Perhaps it has to do with reasoning that since Jesus was not alive to raise himself, and that God raised him directly, that it was an eternal thing. Then you start arguing about how much of the raise dead power that Jesus used from God, so what's the difference?
The truth is that logically you cannot deduct the reasoning from experience. The pat answer of course is that "Jesus told Paul" in that Damascus road experience where Jesus told Paul absolutely everything. Or if you're not so stuck up, then Jesus revealed it to Paul in the same way he revealed truth to him about other stuff - in a warm fuzzy spiritual way. Because the truth is, of course, that death didn't have any mastery over Jesus when he was alive the first time, because he wasn't sinful.
vs 10
Sort of the difference between a once of pay-off (contractual work?) and a long-term servant.
vs 11
Now this is where we step out of theologising, and into practical life. The thing is, that we are still sinful. We are still in frail human bodies, and we cannot escape sin in this life. But Paul wants us to drag our eternal Kingdom truth down to earth and make it a reality in the here and now. And he wants us to do that with our minds. We are to treat ourselves and each other as if we were dead to sin, and therefore free from its power. We are to live as if we are alive to Christ, that is, in the resurrection of a new life.
This is a phenomenal transformation in the life of an individual. Unfortunately, it cannot be 100% acted out in this life, and I think that bums us out and we feel like we can't do it, so we don't bother. But with this attitude, you can still win a lot of victories against sin that perhaps otherwise you would have never won.
vs 12
It's not about us defeating sin - it is about us realising that sin is a defeated foe. It still has teeth and it can bite, but it's dying. Now don't let that fool you into thinking that it is getting weaker. Wild boars have a surge of strength and deadly power before they die, and the death rattle of sin may go on for a long time. It's been rattling for 1900 odd years.
It's almost like a lot of us spend so much time in mourning over sin, that we remember it and toy with its memory, and reminisce and get all nostalgic. But we should act like sin is dead already, like going through your grandma's house and marking what you want to inherit while she's still alive. Just not so mercenary as that.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Romans chapter 5
vs 11
Is it just me or did Paul just say "now that we've been reconciled, imagine how much more we'll be saved! And we also boast about being reconciled!" It's like he skated over reconciliation to make a point about salvation, only to come back and reiterate the importance of reconciliation.
vs 12
This one verse really sums up the human-wide nature of sin. But it is a little circular. Sin came into the world by one man. With sin came death. "In this way", says Paul, death came to all people because all sinned.
Wait, what? Didn't you just say that sin came into the world through one person? How is it that "in this way" all sinned? In what way?
Well, it's in the way of God's creation through one man. Whether you believe in a literal Adam or you think Adam is a metaphor for all humanity (Adam means "humanity" in Hebrew), you're actually stuck with this - because even if Adam wasn't real, he still represents the universal fall of humanity from God by sin.
vs 13
The TNIV has made Paul Irish!
They also make the financial language sound very, very financial.
The first half of this verse sounds historical - it uses was and talks in the past tense about stuff that did happen (sin coming into the world before the Law did).
But the second half sounds more philosophical - it's in the present tense. That's because we need to complete the argument that occurs in verse 14.
vs 14
The fact is that even though there was no law to charge against people, everyone between Adam and Moses still died. Remember that the law did not create sin - sin came first. The law exists to make us aware of sin, but it doesn't create sin.
vs 15
Wait, so how is the gift not like the trespass? The result of death coming through one man is universal. But the grace that comes from one man, Jesus, isn't universal. Is that the difference he's highlighting? Probably not, in that he uses the same word twice (polus - many) to describe each.
Is it just me or did Paul just say "now that we've been reconciled, imagine how much more we'll be saved! And we also boast about being reconciled!" It's like he skated over reconciliation to make a point about salvation, only to come back and reiterate the importance of reconciliation.
vs 12
This one verse really sums up the human-wide nature of sin. But it is a little circular. Sin came into the world by one man. With sin came death. "In this way", says Paul, death came to all people because all sinned.
Wait, what? Didn't you just say that sin came into the world through one person? How is it that "in this way" all sinned? In what way?
Well, it's in the way of God's creation through one man. Whether you believe in a literal Adam or you think Adam is a metaphor for all humanity (Adam means "humanity" in Hebrew), you're actually stuck with this - because even if Adam wasn't real, he still represents the universal fall of humanity from God by sin.
vs 13
The TNIV has made Paul Irish!
They also make the financial language sound very, very financial.
The first half of this verse sounds historical - it uses was and talks in the past tense about stuff that did happen (sin coming into the world before the Law did).
But the second half sounds more philosophical - it's in the present tense. That's because we need to complete the argument that occurs in verse 14.
vs 14
The fact is that even though there was no law to charge against people, everyone between Adam and Moses still died. Remember that the law did not create sin - sin came first. The law exists to make us aware of sin, but it doesn't create sin.
vs 15
Wait, so how is the gift not like the trespass? The result of death coming through one man is universal. But the grace that comes from one man, Jesus, isn't universal. Is that the difference he's highlighting? Probably not, in that he uses the same word twice (polus - many) to describe each.
The only thing I can think is that Paul is saying that the universalism of sin is the cause of man, while the overflowing of God's gift of grace to many is from God, albeit through Christ.
vs 16
That is an interesting contrast - it only took one sin to infect the whole world. But even after an uncountable number of sins over the many generations of humanity, it only took one person's obedience to bring justification.
vs 17
I'm not sure how the reigning gets transferred from death (reigning through Adam) to those with life reigning in life? Wouldn't it be life reigning through them? Apparently not. It is sensical in a way - those scheduled for death are not really in a position to reign over anything. But those who are given life, through grace and righteousness, are fit to reign.
vs 18
This sounds like the gift and the trespass are much more similar than Paul was making out - both come from a single act.
vs 19
This seems repetitious to me.
vs 20
I'm guessing trespass increases for a couple of reasons when a law actually is written. Firstly, there would be things people did beforehand that weren't considered trespass, but then were made unlawful - like wearing clothing made of two types of cloth, or eating shellfish.
Secondly, as Paul points out later, when our sinful nature sees a law, it instantly wants to break it.
The fascinating thing, then, is that through this cycle of evil, God is able to make his grace, and therefore how awesome he is, grow in ever-increasing amounts above and beyond how evil is growing. So if you look at the world and think "Wow, it's getting crappier by the minute", then realise that God's awesomeness is actually growing faster!
vs 21
This is another contrast - sin reigned through death - grace will reign through life. Death has a morbid finality about it. So to ensure that grace is ever-increasing beyond sin, grace has to reign through a much more final (and cheery) result - eternal life.
This makes me understand the power of the resurrection so much more than I have before. Death is a finality to us. We think we die, and that's it. But with God showing that he can resurrect people from the dead, he shows that death has no need for finality - that the default situation for a living being is life, and that they should spend far more of their existence alive than dead.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Romans chapter 5
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?
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?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Romans chapter 4
vs 17
Abraham is a father of faith, if you will. Perhaps the Jews read Genesis more literally, thinking that "father of many nations" meant in fact two. Makes me wonder how often we might read something too literally. Or whether God preps the Bible to have multiple correct meanings dependent on interpretation.
For Paul, God is described in two ways - bringer of new life, and creator. And in that order.
vs 18
Against all worldly hope, in godly hope he believed. That verse is a classic example of simple idiomatic phrasing that could be confusing if you were reading too literalistically.
vs 19-20
I think Paul is being fairly liberal here when he says that Abraham didn't waver through unbelief or weaken in faith. Are those statements ignoring Ishmael? I would say that Ishmael was a son of unbelief. Perhaps Paul would say that he represented Sarah's unbelief, not Abraham's.
The strengthening that Paul speaks of may well be regarding the multiple elucidations of the covenant that come in chapters 15 and 17 as Abraham considers how God will fulfil his promises.
vs 21
Abraham may well have been fully pursuaded after the visit of God and the angels to his tent. Not sure if he was fully persuaded before that. I mean, I think he was fully persuaded that God's promises would be kept, but not in the literal way they were to be kept.
vs 22
If Abraham is the poster boy for faith which is credited as righteousness, then he is the perfect candidate for proving that this faith comes from God. Because we all know that Abraham was not a pillar of strength. He was just a guy.
vs 23-24
So Abraham, who had to believe that God would fulfil his promises through an as yet unconceived son, is the model for the Christian faith. We believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Abraham's was a future hope (although I guess he still had to have faith that God's promises would be fulfilled through his son). Ours is a past hope - Jesus has already died and been raised - but we also still need to have faith that God's going to continue making good on his promises.
vs 25
This verse may well be an extra statement of power regarding the resurrection. Since our faith is centred on Jesus being raised from the dead by God, we have to recognise that without both the death for our sins, and the resurrection for our justification, the job would not be complete.
Abraham is a father of faith, if you will. Perhaps the Jews read Genesis more literally, thinking that "father of many nations" meant in fact two. Makes me wonder how often we might read something too literally. Or whether God preps the Bible to have multiple correct meanings dependent on interpretation.
For Paul, God is described in two ways - bringer of new life, and creator. And in that order.
vs 18
Against all worldly hope, in godly hope he believed. That verse is a classic example of simple idiomatic phrasing that could be confusing if you were reading too literalistically.
vs 19-20
I think Paul is being fairly liberal here when he says that Abraham didn't waver through unbelief or weaken in faith. Are those statements ignoring Ishmael? I would say that Ishmael was a son of unbelief. Perhaps Paul would say that he represented Sarah's unbelief, not Abraham's.
The strengthening that Paul speaks of may well be regarding the multiple elucidations of the covenant that come in chapters 15 and 17 as Abraham considers how God will fulfil his promises.
vs 21
Abraham may well have been fully pursuaded after the visit of God and the angels to his tent. Not sure if he was fully persuaded before that. I mean, I think he was fully persuaded that God's promises would be kept, but not in the literal way they were to be kept.
vs 22
If Abraham is the poster boy for faith which is credited as righteousness, then he is the perfect candidate for proving that this faith comes from God. Because we all know that Abraham was not a pillar of strength. He was just a guy.
vs 23-24
So Abraham, who had to believe that God would fulfil his promises through an as yet unconceived son, is the model for the Christian faith. We believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Abraham's was a future hope (although I guess he still had to have faith that God's promises would be fulfilled through his son). Ours is a past hope - Jesus has already died and been raised - but we also still need to have faith that God's going to continue making good on his promises.
vs 25
This verse may well be an extra statement of power regarding the resurrection. Since our faith is centred on Jesus being raised from the dead by God, we have to recognise that without both the death for our sins, and the resurrection for our justification, the job would not be complete.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Romans chapter 4
vs 9
So here's the big question that Paul wants to answer - can gentiles be counted as people of the promises of God?
vs 10
Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness before he received the covenant of circumcision, and Paul uses this fact to argue that therefore righteousness can be credited to those with faith, rather than without hats.
vs 11
He goes further to say that Abraham received circumcision as a sign to prove therighteousness he was credited in order that he might be able to represent both camps, so that righteousness could go to both.
vs 12
Complicated passage, but here's what I think Paul's saying. Paul is saying that Abraham is a father of faith - that his sons and daughters are sons and daughters of faith. If you aren't circumcised, then that's ok - you still need to have the faith of Abraham to be under his covenant of righteousness. If you are circumcised, you are also a child of Abraham, but only if you are also following in the faith that Abraham had, even before he was circumcised.
vs 13
The Law hadn't even been written yet!
vs 14
If law brings righteousness instead of faith, then faith is worthless. Sad but true, and yet so many people live by law. It's funny, but Paul doesn't feel the need to defend the value of faith - he believes that those reading this will understand the value of faith, and realise that any argument that makes faith valueless is worthless.
vs 15
This verse does two things. Firstly, it shows that the reason you can't depend on law for your inheritance is because law only brings wrath. There's no righteousness imparted by the law.
Secondly, though, if there is no law, there is no transgression - so we need law because if there was no law, there would also be no need for faith.
vs 16
So while the existance of the law is a necessity to bring wrath and to highlight transgression, the righteousness that makes our relationship with God possible can't come by that law - it has to come by faith. And the reason Abraham happened when he did - before Mosaic Law - was so that this righteousness would be open to anybody.
So here's the big question that Paul wants to answer - can gentiles be counted as people of the promises of God?
vs 10
Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness before he received the covenant of circumcision, and Paul uses this fact to argue that therefore righteousness can be credited to those with faith, rather than without hats.
vs 11
He goes further to say that Abraham received circumcision as a sign to prove therighteousness he was credited in order that he might be able to represent both camps, so that righteousness could go to both.
vs 12
Complicated passage, but here's what I think Paul's saying. Paul is saying that Abraham is a father of faith - that his sons and daughters are sons and daughters of faith. If you aren't circumcised, then that's ok - you still need to have the faith of Abraham to be under his covenant of righteousness. If you are circumcised, you are also a child of Abraham, but only if you are also following in the faith that Abraham had, even before he was circumcised.
vs 13
The Law hadn't even been written yet!
vs 14
If law brings righteousness instead of faith, then faith is worthless. Sad but true, and yet so many people live by law. It's funny, but Paul doesn't feel the need to defend the value of faith - he believes that those reading this will understand the value of faith, and realise that any argument that makes faith valueless is worthless.
vs 15
This verse does two things. Firstly, it shows that the reason you can't depend on law for your inheritance is because law only brings wrath. There's no righteousness imparted by the law.
Secondly, though, if there is no law, there is no transgression - so we need law because if there was no law, there would also be no need for faith.
vs 16
So while the existance of the law is a necessity to bring wrath and to highlight transgression, the righteousness that makes our relationship with God possible can't come by that law - it has to come by faith. And the reason Abraham happened when he did - before Mosaic Law - was so that this righteousness would be open to anybody.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Romans chapter 4
vs 1
We get today a case study on the man Abraham. Abraham's an important person, because he was the receiver of the covenant of circumcision (before the OT law was even written).
vs 2
This is a complicated little sentence. Is Paul saying that even if Abraham was justified by his works, that he still wouldn't be able to boast before God? That's how you want to read it, but that doesn't seem to be the argument that Paul is following. Paul's argument goes on to prove that Abraham did not get justified by his works anyway, so it's sort of beside the point. Perhaps Paul is throwing in that little aside as a sideways glance at the Jews. It's a logical argument - if Abraham was justified by works, he is still in effect justified by God. But Paul doesn't pursue it.
vs 3
Instead, Paul wants to show that Abraham had his righteousness credited to him. For someone who is most probably making his scriptural arguments entirely from memory, he is placing a lot of value on one or two specific words.
vs 4
Remember that, when you're paying someone. You owe it to them to pay them. This is the way of the world, though, that is pretty much understood in order that mercantilism can continue.
vs 5
So righteousness is not earned as a wage, but it is credited to you like a gift. I think the "does not work" is not imperative - that is, I don't think you have to not work in order to trust God. But you can't trust work.
vs 6
Paul now finds another source, highly valued by the Jews - David. As far as Paul is concerned, David is saying the same thing.
vs 7-8
David obviously doesn't say anything that is as clear as what Paul is making out from these two verses. However, if you knew the whole psalm, you would know that David says that he confessed his sins to God, and God forgave them. The coverings of sins does not come from working hard at obeying the law. It comes from trusting God to forgive those sins.
We get today a case study on the man Abraham. Abraham's an important person, because he was the receiver of the covenant of circumcision (before the OT law was even written).
vs 2
This is a complicated little sentence. Is Paul saying that even if Abraham was justified by his works, that he still wouldn't be able to boast before God? That's how you want to read it, but that doesn't seem to be the argument that Paul is following. Paul's argument goes on to prove that Abraham did not get justified by his works anyway, so it's sort of beside the point. Perhaps Paul is throwing in that little aside as a sideways glance at the Jews. It's a logical argument - if Abraham was justified by works, he is still in effect justified by God. But Paul doesn't pursue it.
vs 3
Instead, Paul wants to show that Abraham had his righteousness credited to him. For someone who is most probably making his scriptural arguments entirely from memory, he is placing a lot of value on one or two specific words.
vs 4
Remember that, when you're paying someone. You owe it to them to pay them. This is the way of the world, though, that is pretty much understood in order that mercantilism can continue.
vs 5
So righteousness is not earned as a wage, but it is credited to you like a gift. I think the "does not work" is not imperative - that is, I don't think you have to not work in order to trust God. But you can't trust work.
vs 6
Paul now finds another source, highly valued by the Jews - David. As far as Paul is concerned, David is saying the same thing.
vs 7-8
David obviously doesn't say anything that is as clear as what Paul is making out from these two verses. However, if you knew the whole psalm, you would know that David says that he confessed his sins to God, and God forgave them. The coverings of sins does not come from working hard at obeying the law. It comes from trusting God to forgive those sins.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Romans chapter 3
vs 21
So the law and the prophets testify to God's righteousness. Or is it that they testify that God's righteousness will be revealed apart from the Law.
I'm leaning more towards the first one, but really only because of the way the TNIV translates it.
vs 22
So instead of the righteousness being revelaed through the law, it is being made known through Christ. And not only is the righteousness of God being made known, but it is available, given to believers. It's awesome to think that rather than our own righteousness, we have God's righteousness.
vs 23
What an odd verse break up, but this is a good memory verse I guess. I think it could have started just as easily at the 'no difference' bit, but hey, this is how it was done.
What the verse breakup between 23 and 24 does do is makes us focus on this first point in its entirety - that everyone, no matter who, has fallen short because of sin. Paul just spent the last few chapters making this absolutely clear to us.
vs 24
Wow, this verse has a lot of buzz words.
Justification comes only through Christ. Justification is the legal status of innocence proven by a court. That's pretty much what righteousness means.
It comes through redemption - redemption is the buying of something. So specifically, this righteoussness that is revealed apart from the law comes because of Christ. We aren't righteous, but Jesus buys that righteousness for us.
It comes by his grace - grace is undeserved favour. Basically an unearned gift.
So we end up with our righteousness basically being bought for us by Jesus and given to us free of charge.
Of some consideration is the word 'all' which is in the TNIV translation. The problem is that the word 'all' isn't in vs 24 in the greek. What the TNIV people are doing is repeating it in vs 24, because they obviously believe that the 'all' from vs 23 remains the subject.
Regardless of whether you translate it with an extra 'all', the fact is that if vs 24 still has the subject of 'all', then that might change how you want to interpret vs 24. See, no evangelical has a problem with vs 23 using a universal 'all' because all people are sinful in their theology. But when you start talking about 'all' also being justified, then you're into universalism, and that's not evangelical.
Of course, most of any argument there should be dispelled by the contents of vs 22, which makes it clear that you've gotta have faith. vs 25, we will see, also makes this clear.
vs 25
Is it the atonement that is to be received by faith, or is it the sacrifice of atonement? That is, is Christ being sacrificed to us, or is he being sacrificed for us? Unfortunately the other translations only bone this verse up all the more, making it even less understandable. Assuming for us, then it is the atonement we receive, not the sacrifice.
I guess you could argue that vs 24's 'all' (or reference to vs 23's 'all') is an in potentia all, because if everyone accepted Christ's atonement by faith, then they're in.
vs 25-26
On to the demonstration of justice then. Because of the verse marker, all we're going to learn about this demonstration of justice from vs 25 is that it has something to do with the previous sins being unpunished. The idea Paul wants to bring out, I suppose, is that Christ's death is sufficient to cover the sins of previous (and future) generations, so that those who came before have been waiting in abeyance until the temporal nature of this salvation was assured.
The sins that came before could not be punished, because this would have meant that Jesus' death was actually unjust - for those who could not accept it in time.
I'm not sure if 'just and justifies' is a wordplay.
vs 27
It's hard to boast about what you've done when it hasn't actually accomplished what you're boasting about.
vs 28
Paul wants to make it clear that it is not some mix of following law and faith in Christ that gets you over the line - it is faith only. He does this by putting forward the argument that justification can come through faith without the law.
vs 29
This also has the impact of showing that God can be the God of gentiles because he does not have expectations about the law for the purposes of salvation.
vs 30
Both are justified, and not through circumcision (that is, through an old covenant). They are justified through faith in that God, who has made clear the reason why we should have faith in him - because he has provided a sacrifice that atones for our sin.
vs 31
I get the feeling that this should have been chapter 4 verse 1. Let's find out if Paul is going to continue with this motif that our faith upholds the law.
So the law and the prophets testify to God's righteousness. Or is it that they testify that God's righteousness will be revealed apart from the Law.
I'm leaning more towards the first one, but really only because of the way the TNIV translates it.
vs 22
So instead of the righteousness being revelaed through the law, it is being made known through Christ. And not only is the righteousness of God being made known, but it is available, given to believers. It's awesome to think that rather than our own righteousness, we have God's righteousness.
vs 23
What an odd verse break up, but this is a good memory verse I guess. I think it could have started just as easily at the 'no difference' bit, but hey, this is how it was done.
What the verse breakup between 23 and 24 does do is makes us focus on this first point in its entirety - that everyone, no matter who, has fallen short because of sin. Paul just spent the last few chapters making this absolutely clear to us.
vs 24
Wow, this verse has a lot of buzz words.
Justification comes only through Christ. Justification is the legal status of innocence proven by a court. That's pretty much what righteousness means.
It comes through redemption - redemption is the buying of something. So specifically, this righteoussness that is revealed apart from the law comes because of Christ. We aren't righteous, but Jesus buys that righteousness for us.
It comes by his grace - grace is undeserved favour. Basically an unearned gift.
So we end up with our righteousness basically being bought for us by Jesus and given to us free of charge.
Of some consideration is the word 'all' which is in the TNIV translation. The problem is that the word 'all' isn't in vs 24 in the greek. What the TNIV people are doing is repeating it in vs 24, because they obviously believe that the 'all' from vs 23 remains the subject.
Regardless of whether you translate it with an extra 'all', the fact is that if vs 24 still has the subject of 'all', then that might change how you want to interpret vs 24. See, no evangelical has a problem with vs 23 using a universal 'all' because all people are sinful in their theology. But when you start talking about 'all' also being justified, then you're into universalism, and that's not evangelical.
Of course, most of any argument there should be dispelled by the contents of vs 22, which makes it clear that you've gotta have faith. vs 25, we will see, also makes this clear.
vs 25
Is it the atonement that is to be received by faith, or is it the sacrifice of atonement? That is, is Christ being sacrificed to us, or is he being sacrificed for us? Unfortunately the other translations only bone this verse up all the more, making it even less understandable. Assuming for us, then it is the atonement we receive, not the sacrifice.
I guess you could argue that vs 24's 'all' (or reference to vs 23's 'all') is an in potentia all, because if everyone accepted Christ's atonement by faith, then they're in.
vs 25-26
On to the demonstration of justice then. Because of the verse marker, all we're going to learn about this demonstration of justice from vs 25 is that it has something to do with the previous sins being unpunished. The idea Paul wants to bring out, I suppose, is that Christ's death is sufficient to cover the sins of previous (and future) generations, so that those who came before have been waiting in abeyance until the temporal nature of this salvation was assured.
The sins that came before could not be punished, because this would have meant that Jesus' death was actually unjust - for those who could not accept it in time.
I'm not sure if 'just and justifies' is a wordplay.
vs 27
It's hard to boast about what you've done when it hasn't actually accomplished what you're boasting about.
vs 28
Paul wants to make it clear that it is not some mix of following law and faith in Christ that gets you over the line - it is faith only. He does this by putting forward the argument that justification can come through faith without the law.
vs 29
This also has the impact of showing that God can be the God of gentiles because he does not have expectations about the law for the purposes of salvation.
vs 30
Both are justified, and not through circumcision (that is, through an old covenant). They are justified through faith in that God, who has made clear the reason why we should have faith in him - because he has provided a sacrifice that atones for our sin.
vs 31
I get the feeling that this should have been chapter 4 verse 1. Let's find out if Paul is going to continue with this motif that our faith upholds the law.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Romans chapter 3
vs 10-12
Paul uses these verses to present the truth of his argument over the last two chapters - that Jews and gentiles are alike under sin. It is a classic Old Testament proof of his ideas.
However, the reason that the bibles with footnotes have Psalm 14, Psalm 53 and Ecclesiastes 7 as direct references for these verses is because, well, these verses aren't directly out of scripture. Paul's "as it is written" is really more of an "as the message of the OT says". It's an amalgam of ideas, not a direct quote. Now, some people would say that Paul was quoting from memory, so it's ok to get it a little wrong. But it is in fact quite different.
Now, this honestly doesn't bother me, because Paul does in fact exegete the OT passages well, and the resulting phrases in vs 10-12 here represent the truth of meaning behind the Psalms and Ecclesiastes. This shows us, if nothing else, that rephrasing scripture for the sake of clarifying its point when we are trying to reiterate that point is totally valid.
Paul's point, then, is that no one has ever made the grade when it comes to sin and righteousness. Although we may know people who are seeking God, we may know people who we see as righteous, it's actually more that those people are seeking God more than average, or that someone is more righteous than we are. But are they 'righteous'? Do they 'seek God'? When measured against a formal absolute, the answer is no.
vs 13-18
Paul pulls out the OT quoting stops here, and just writes down every OT verse he can think of that describes the fallenness of humanity. Completely out of context, too, I might add. Psalm 5:9 describes David's enemies, Psalm 140 describes 'the wicked', as does Psalm 10, while Isaiah 57 I am pretty sure describes Israel, Psalm 36 going back comfortingly to the wicked.
When David describes 'the wicked', he's almost always talking about his enemies (usually gentiles, sometimes Israelites against him). Whereas Isaiah is written primarily to kick the butts of Israelites. My point is that even though the psalms and Isaiah all have a specific context, Paul combines those contexts as an anecdotal, historical proof that what he is saying is true, and that it is repeated - that people are wicked.
vs 19-20
In an effort to push his point further home to the Jews (apparently the gentiles get it by now), Paul explains that the law of God exists not to provide righteousness. Rather, it exists to provide judgement and consciousness about how we cannot stick to it. Israel's history bears that out pretty well. But he is being inclusive - although he has said that any gentile who holds to the law can be considered circumcised, he is pointing out that even gentiles can't obey the whole law. So therefore it exists in judgement over them too.
So what is to happen, then? If God has established a law of perfection that no one can attain to, how does one become righteous? And not just 'more righteous than the next person', but attain to that absolute 'righteous' quality that God demands?
Find out tomorrow!
Paul uses these verses to present the truth of his argument over the last two chapters - that Jews and gentiles are alike under sin. It is a classic Old Testament proof of his ideas.
However, the reason that the bibles with footnotes have Psalm 14, Psalm 53 and Ecclesiastes 7 as direct references for these verses is because, well, these verses aren't directly out of scripture. Paul's "as it is written" is really more of an "as the message of the OT says". It's an amalgam of ideas, not a direct quote. Now, some people would say that Paul was quoting from memory, so it's ok to get it a little wrong. But it is in fact quite different.
Now, this honestly doesn't bother me, because Paul does in fact exegete the OT passages well, and the resulting phrases in vs 10-12 here represent the truth of meaning behind the Psalms and Ecclesiastes. This shows us, if nothing else, that rephrasing scripture for the sake of clarifying its point when we are trying to reiterate that point is totally valid.
Paul's point, then, is that no one has ever made the grade when it comes to sin and righteousness. Although we may know people who are seeking God, we may know people who we see as righteous, it's actually more that those people are seeking God more than average, or that someone is more righteous than we are. But are they 'righteous'? Do they 'seek God'? When measured against a formal absolute, the answer is no.
vs 13-18
Paul pulls out the OT quoting stops here, and just writes down every OT verse he can think of that describes the fallenness of humanity. Completely out of context, too, I might add. Psalm 5:9 describes David's enemies, Psalm 140 describes 'the wicked', as does Psalm 10, while Isaiah 57 I am pretty sure describes Israel, Psalm 36 going back comfortingly to the wicked.
When David describes 'the wicked', he's almost always talking about his enemies (usually gentiles, sometimes Israelites against him). Whereas Isaiah is written primarily to kick the butts of Israelites. My point is that even though the psalms and Isaiah all have a specific context, Paul combines those contexts as an anecdotal, historical proof that what he is saying is true, and that it is repeated - that people are wicked.
vs 19-20
In an effort to push his point further home to the Jews (apparently the gentiles get it by now), Paul explains that the law of God exists not to provide righteousness. Rather, it exists to provide judgement and consciousness about how we cannot stick to it. Israel's history bears that out pretty well. But he is being inclusive - although he has said that any gentile who holds to the law can be considered circumcised, he is pointing out that even gentiles can't obey the whole law. So therefore it exists in judgement over them too.
So what is to happen, then? If God has established a law of perfection that no one can attain to, how does one become righteous? And not just 'more righteous than the next person', but attain to that absolute 'righteous' quality that God demands?
Find out tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)