Sunday, July 19, 2009

The greatest deception ever

This is not really anything. It is not an interpretation of all of Romans but is an attempt to pick up some of the themes that Romans deals with, with 7:11 as the pole around which everything else revolved. Although that is not to say that it is an exposition of that verse.

It is the result of some reflection on truth and lies in Romans. I posted a word search on truth, lies and deceit here, but should have searched for 'knowledge'/'knowing'/'knew'/'know' and more would have been clearer sooner. But as 7:11 connects deceit with the law, it is also my attempt to understand how these themes fit with the law.

This is also not my promised post on knowledge of God through creation, but will hopefully feed into it... so with that out of the way....

God in creation made himself known by revealing the truth about his power and nature (1:18). However all humanity rejected this truth preferring instead to believe a lie (singular, 1:25). What was this lie? If we read Genesis 3 the lie that the serpent deceived Eve with was the lie that God would not follow through on his threat of death. In short he persuaded Eve that 'the wrath of God is [not] against all ungodliness and unrighteousness' (1:18). That wrath has been revealed so we should now know it to be true, and yet humanity still believes the same lie.

God provided Israel with the law which was the 'embodiment of knowledge and truth' (2:19-21). This law meant Israel knew 'that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice' sin (2:2). However, Israel while believing this truth in relation to others did not believe it applied to them, and so they did not 'obey the truth' (2:8). Instead of letting the law judge them they relied on it and boasted that they knew God's will (2:17-18). They taught others but not themselves.

The people of Israel were believing the serpent's old lie that judgment would not really fall on them. So if God entered into judgment with Israel, like God did with David (in Ps 51 quoted in Rom 3:4), God would be justified in punishing Israel - proving the lie to be a lie. Israel should listen to their own law which, as Paul shows in the quotations of Romans 3, declares them to be under sin and under the curse. Instead they were using their tongues to deceive themselves and others about their true situation which was that they were under the curse of creation and of the law.

But what of the covenants and the promises of God to Israel? Can God really be faithful to these promises and also be justified in his judgment against sin? Or from the other direction, how can God pass over former sins and yet stay the righteous judge who does not let the wicked go unpunished?

Paul explains that God has fulfilled both the law and the promise that appeared 430 years earlier. He did this by putting forward Jesus as a sacrifice for our sins. He took the curse of the law (showing God to be righteous) but he also fulfilled the promise of the covenant with Abraham that God would be faithful to his promise even at the cost of his own life.

But does this only affect the Jews, of is it for the Gentiles also? After all the promise was to Abraham and his offspring, and the law was only for the Jews as well. Aren't the Gentiles just spectators to this drama of the Jewish people. No, because God is the God of all of creation. The law was just the embodiment of what was already in creation (chap 1). The promise to Abraham was that 'all the nations be blessed' (Gal 3:8). The Jews were priests to the world, and represented the world to God. God was never just interested in them.

But all this assumes that the promise cannot come through obeying the law. Isn't that what the bible teaches? Wasn't Abraham declared righteousness because he obeyed the law, and receive the promise because of his obedience? No! Abraham was declared righteous because he believed in 'him who justifies the ungodly' (4:5). He then received the promise, not because of what he did but as a gift.

So why then the law? What did the law achieve?

  • It brought knowledge of sin (3:20)
  • It brought transgression (4:15)
  • It counted sin (5:13)
  • It increased the trespass/sin (5:20)
  • It held us captive (7:6) Imprisoning us under sin (Gal 3:22)
  • It showed sin to be sin (7:13)
  • It made sin sinful beyond measure (7:13)

These can be brought under two headings:

  1. It described what sin looked like and told us that it would lead to God's wrath
  2. It actually increased the sin

We can understand how the law did 1. while remaining good, but how did it do 2. while still being a good thing?

Well it did it because it was not the law itself but Sin using the law to its own advantage. It used the law to bring the deception it had been perpetuating since Eve, to its climax. It used the law to perform the deception of history, which showed more than had ever been shown before how sinful humanity was.

By the commandment the Devil deceived humanity into believing not merely that God's judgment wasn't as strong as they thought (as he did with Eve), but instead he deceived humanity into using God's judgment against God himself. Israel did this whenever they boasted about the law. They did it every time that thought that doing a good work earned them a wage. But they did it supremely in the greatest sin of history, the crucifixion of God's own Son.

This was legalism brought to its climax. They rejected the cornerstone and it became a stumbling block (9:33; 1 Peter 2:7-8). They had a zeal for God, a zeal for keeping the law, but this was not according to knowledge of the truth and so they did not submit to God's righteousness in the person of Christ but instead they killed him (10:1-3)! They condemned the perfect obedient son using the very law that should have led them to accept him. They were deceived like Eve was into thinking that they could take the place of judge over God, instead of letting God judge them. But they increased the trespass because where as Eve had just rejected God's law and asserted her authority, the Jewish leaders had used God's law itself to assert theirs.

However that judgment was shown to be a lie by God's raising of Christ from the dead for his justification (1 Timothy 3:16). He 'was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead' (Romans 1:3). But that justification of Jesus was also our justification if we see ourselves judged in his death by being baptised into it (4:5). We too can share in his declaration to be a child of God. We too can share in his new resurrection life.

What do you think? Does that make sense of the text? My particular concern might be that it reads the truth/lie as belief/rejection of the judgment of God against sin, when the connected promise should also be in there as well. Some of the passages seem to fit the latter better than the former.

8 comments:

  1. ooooh. I like that.

    Have you heard Simon Gathercole on "Sin in God's economy: Agencies (& Deception) in Romans 1 and 7"?

    I'd love to hear what you think. Also one phrase stood out: "The law was just the embodiment of what was already in creation". That sounds like a Natural goods account. Care to expand? :)

    http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/gheens2004/20041115gathercole_01.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  2. just noticed that link is going off the page. In case it doesn't work, it's here

    ReplyDelete
  3. ps also interested in your reference to 1 tim 3, which fits with my esoteric reading of 1 Tim 2 that "woman shall be saved through childbearing" is referring to the woman in Gen 3 (not Eve) believing God's (proto)gospel promise and being named Eve, "mother of life" amid the curse of death in Gen 3, thus the issue is legalism 1st women 2nd...but anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I liked he first half of your exposition very much, Dave. Got a bit lost in the second half.

    One query. You seem to personify sin. I can see the precedent for this; indeed it struck me when reading your earlier post that St Paul seemed to do the same in Rom. 7.11. However, I don't understand what it is you're talking about when you describe "Sin" as "using the law to its advantage". Isn't sin something we 'do' rather than a distinct entity?

    Sorry if, as I suspect, this is very tangential.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. Although as usual I'm surprised that reactions haven't been focused where I would expect. Always the blind spots...

    Chris,

    listened to Gathercole on my walk to a meeting this evening. Very, very helpful. I liked it. Particularly liked the interpretation of mind and members of Stephen Chester that he brings attention to.

    "The law was just...." was a very sloppy sentence. Sorry about that. I don't really believe in natural goods as being clear apart from special revelation.

    Paul in Romans 1 says that the wrath of God against sin has been revealed by X. However, without special revelation there is no way you would have come to that conclusion as a certainty. Special revelation provides the glasses to see what was in creation already as Calvin would say. A proper attempt to expand on what I think will have to wait for my proper post though. (I feel I'm building it up too much as my thinking is very messy).

    Hmmm. Your interpretation of 1 Tim 2:15 is interesting. I think you are right it is about the promised seed which saves. Giving birth to children is always an expression of faith in the future, but particularly for the women with the promise of the serpent-crusher to rest on. Not sure what you mean about 'legalism 1st women 2nd' though. Care to expand? :)

    Hi Steve,

    Sorry if the second half got you lost. I probably got a bit more free and excitable as I got going and was less disciplined in what I wrote. It makes sense to me, but then I wrote it!

    I think my burden was to say that there is some truth in the interpretation of what the Jews did with the law which says that they made it the basis of legalism. That they made it a 'defence against the gift'. That they used it to demand things as a wage from God.

    However, I wanted to see that this came to a head in their relationship with Jesus, whom they ended up crucifying. Because I seem to be spending a lot of time doing Christianity Explored at the moment I'm always reading Mark. In the Gospels you are constantly meeting people who are either blind or can see. Who react to Jesus in different ways. I think we can lose that in talk about works v. grace etc. I don't think Paul forgot the great sin of his people, and of him, was to reject the promised messiah. There are of course loads of passages which show that he saw the cross and resurrection as the definitive event in God's dealings with the world and the Jews.

    Anyway, that may make it more unclear.

    Anyway, on your point about the personification of 'Sin'.

    Why do I do this? I think I'm just following Paul and I think all the commentators would agree. But then what is this Sin?

    I suppose that personification is usually of something that is not a person. So that means that it could remain at root something we do. Gathercole seems (I may be wrong) to suggest that Sin (with a capital 'S') is what he calls the meta-sin. That is the big sin (of rejecting the truth) that leads to the other sins we do. That makes some sense. Alternatively you could say that it is the devil.

    I think they are too difficult to separate. However, I think it is important to recognise that sin is both something we are master of, and something that masters us. So we must never loose that we are saved from both the penalty and the power of sin. I think evangelicals can overplay the former (resulting from sin we do), and liberals the later. We need to have both. Incidentally I think Luther probably succeeds here more than anyone I know.

    Is that just rambling? I've got to rush. Several more people to email/message before bed tonight. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Dave

    I really like the style of thinking that has brought you to this point. Very helpful. And thanks for the follow-up points, it's helped me to more clearly see where you are heading. It's perhaps worth adding that the quotes in Romans 3 are drawn from Psalms addressed to both Jews and Gentiles. Jew and Gentiles alike are under sin and under the curse. And I love how you draw together corporate thinking and a strong emphasis on justification. And I find very compelling what you say about Jewish legalism. Makes me want to go and re-read Romans 9-11 right away!

    I guess like Steve I was surprised to see sin personified in the way that it was. I may have misunderstood what you are saying, and perhaps I've got too basic an understanding of sin, but I understand that we are freed from the penalty and power of sin, but that we need the Spirit's conviction of that sin in order to be brought to repentance and the renewal of our minds (copious references to chapters 8 & 12 there!). In other words, we truly are free, but our hearts were coming from such a situation of depravity that we should never be surprised when sin is exposed.

    I guess I'm being pastorally driven here, but I'm disturbed by the way in which Christians (including myself) are so quick to excuse sin 'because I'm a sinner'. Subconsciously we start thinking that we're not really free after all. In other words, we may speak of evangelical theology but in practice we believe the same as liberals anyway. This doesn't seem to match the emphasis of Romans; which offers hope to the sinful whilst at the same time not underestimating the truly destructive nature of sin both in believer and unbeliever.

    I know this wasn't quite along the track of what you were saying, but I think you're right - chapters 5 and 7 in my opinion are perhaps the most vital to a fuller understanding of Romans so it's important to work hard on them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excellent points. And perhaps I ought to head the points made by you and Steve.

    Pastorally though I would mention that while sin is a power and I talked about that a lot, it has no power over the Christian. The focus in my post was on the non-Christian Jew/Gentile. Things are different for us as Paul says in the parts of Romans I didn't really touch on.

    The 'I can't help it because of the power of sin' is as inexcusable for a Christian to say as 'I don't believe God will forgive all the awful things I've done'. We may feel that... I certainly feel the first (I'm personally more inclined to presume upon God's forgiveness than doubt it) but I have to tell myself again and again that it is not true. I was under Sin's power, but no longer. I can now live in the power of Christ's resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'heed', not 'head'.

    And welcome back!

    ReplyDelete