Despising and judging

The penny dropped for me this week...

The weak Christian tends to judge the strong Christian. The strong Christian tends to despise the weak Christian. Ask yourself, "who do I despise?" "Who do I judge?"

I suspect most of us are a mixture of strong and weak, depending on the issue. Perhaps you despise the six-day creationists and judge those who don't regularly attend your small group... perhaps its something else.

I've been really helped to see that what Paul is so concerned about is eradicating from the church both despising and judging.

Paul reminds us we should "welcome" our brother and sister (v.1) because "God has welcomed him" (v.3). We are meant to imitate God in his grace... but not in his judgement. "We will all stand before the judgement seat of God" (v. 10), but that is precisely why Paul thinks we shouldn't judge our fellow believer. Having said that, Paul still sees judging having a role in church discipline, in particular if it is necessary (as a church leader) to excommunicate those "guilty of sexual immorality or greed...an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler" (1 Cor 5:11).

I once heard Tim Keller challenge those in his congregation that were self-righteous and those that were self-righteous about not being self-righteous. I need to hear both and give up both despising or judging and instead welcome all my brothers and sisters.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

Most financial products come with the warning:

past performance is no guarantee of future results

House prices may have gone up the last 5 years, but that doesn't mean they will this year. From mere facts, we can make educated guesses about the future, but there is always at least an undercurrent of fear because of the uncertainty.

This is what life is like without a preacher, and was the disadvantage suffered by the Gentiles until the missionaries came (Romans 3:1)...

Jews have a preacher, many preachers in fact, and so they have been given God's words. The Gentiles had none, until Paul - Apostle - and thus before the preacher arrived they were reduced to investigating a fallen creation for clues as to who their hidden God was (Paul found them in Athens worshipping a statue that said, "To the unknown God"). Usually God is known by his mighty acts of the past so that even the Gentiles could learn something of God this way. The words that gave Jews an advantage in life were promises by which God could be known in terms of the future...When one is able to trust God by means of a word one speaks very differently to him - in the way husband and wife speak to one another as opposed to the way an advertisement addresses an unknown client.

(pp.54-55, Steven Paulson, Lutheran Theology)

Sadly, many unreached peoples are still in the same situation. Trembling at the sound of a falling leaf (as both Calvin and Luther said).

Notes on Romans 9

Just been going through the sobering passage of Romans 9.

Vessels

"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory"

I think Paul is saying that Israel were the vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction.

God was patient in holding back on punishing Israel until the Messiah came (3:25)

He then 'destroyed' Israel by casting them off when they rejected the Messiah

This was "in order" that "vessels of mercy" would be glorified. As Paul says in 11:11-15, their casting off was so that the Gentiles could be grafted in.

"riches" is often tied to bringing in the Gentiles for Paul, and the idea of the long preparedness of the mystery of bringing in the Gentiles is also a common theme.

Seeing this passage as storied in this way, makes you look to the future which in Romans 11 is that as a result of being cast off, and becoming jealous, Israel would repent and be saved.

Offspring

The Seed/Offspring (singular) of Galatians 3:16, comes through in Romans 9 as well.

In vv.6-12 all the descendants of Abraham and then Isaac are cut off except one. This is reinforced by the comment that "Rebekah had conceived children by one man" (surely unnecessary to remind us that Jacob only had one father otherwise!).

Isaac and Jacob are not just case-studies of election/reprobation because Paul says they were elected "in order that God's purpose of election might continue". The "in order that" comes again later in v. 23, and chapter 11. Good rejects in order to bring about his redemptive purposes in Christ.

The "offspring", is the remnant in v. 29. Paul quotes the passage to show that God has cast off and carried out "his sentence", but the seed remains.

No stone left standing

It is instructive to read Isaiah 28:14-29 as a background to the whole passage.

Isaiah 28:16 is quoted by Paul, but his conclusion to Romans 9-11 ("Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!...who has been his counselor?") echoes the end of Isaiah 28:14-29 ("the Lord of hosts; he is wonderful in counsel and excellent in wisdom").

Isaiah describes how Israel "have made lies [their] refuge" (NB truth/lies a big theme in Romans), but that God is going to level them. He is going to utterly destroy but then start rebuilding again starting with the cornerstone. To Paul this means that he has rejected Israel so he can build a new people of Jews and Gentiles on the foundation of Christ.

Conclusion

In the light of all this, considering the OT context of Habakkuk 2:4, and reading Ezekiel (one bleak book!) in church bible studies at the moment, I believe the offence of the Gospel for the Jews was that Jesus showed that they needed to die and to raise again a new people. The Jews, like all of us, want to be told the Gospel is a extra to add on or a way of healing our old bodies. But offensively the Gospel says that we have to die and by faith live.

Death is always going to be bad news in some sense, but the good news in this is that eternal life is not more of the same, but something qualitatively different. Christopher Hitchens may hate the idea of eternally carrying on, but I suspect that is only because the life we live right now is fairly tiresome.

The new will be beyond what we can imagine, not just a polished version of the old.

When Christ died, you were widowed!

"a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God." (Romans 7:2-4)

Cast of characters:

Woman = Paul's brothers, Israel (and the Gentile church grafted on) [thanks Chris]

First husband = The first Adam, the old humanity, Jesus Christ "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3)

Second husband = The last Adam, the new humanity, Jesus Christ in his "spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44)

Law = marriage covenant between Israel and the first Adam, the bond that unites

Spirit = marriage covenant between the church and the last Adam (Rom 7:6), the bond that unites

-----------------

The law was the equivalent of a marriage certificate binding us to Adam. "All that was his, is yours" it declares. All his death and all his sin.

But Adam died on the cross, and if we believe that then we can get remarried without breaking the law. If we don't believe that then we'll keep living in the house of death instead of moving in with our new husband into the house of life which is ours by faith.

The Spirit promises us that we are united to the risen Christ in marriage. "All that was his, is yours" it declares. All his life and all his righteousness.

Notes on Romans 7

"we are not under law but under grace" (6:15)

"slaves... of sin...or of obedience" (6:16)

"you who were once slaves of sin have become... slaves of righteousness" (6:17-18)

"you were slaves of sin...But now...have become slaves of God" (6:20-21)

"we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (7:6)

"I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law... making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." (7:22-23)

"I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." (7:25)

"be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (12:2)

"you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (2 Cor 3:3)

"Though our outer self [lit 'man'] is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day." (2 Cor 4:16)

"if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." (2 Cor 5:17)

"I bow my knees before the Father... that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:14-17)

"put off your old self [lit 'man'], which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self [lit 'man'], created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:22-24)

"seeing that you have put off the old self [lit 'man'] with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." (Col 3:9-10)

If the "mind" in Romans 7 does not equal the "new self"/"new creation"/"inner self"/"inner being" of the Christian, then I know nothing about reading the Bible. The man in Romans 7 must be a Christian, but a Christian caught in the already/not-yet... That doesn't mean I don't still have questions!

Words in Romans 3:1-20

Again, a friend showed me part of what is going on in Romans. Romans 3:1-20 is saturated in talk about talk.

v. 2: The Jews have the Oracles of God, God's word in the OT.

v.4a: People speak lies, but God is true.

v.4b: God's "words" will be "justified" and shown to be true.

...how?

v.5: Our lies actually serve to show the truthfulness of God, because God has previously declared us liars.

v. 7: So, through my lying "God's truth abounds to his glory".

v.7: But we don't take this easily and still we question why we being condemned. We continue to question God, to put him in the dock and charge him with claiming to be just when actually he is not being. We call God a liar.

v.8: This is slander against God and is mirrored in slander against his apostles. But as has been said, that person is condemned by their own words.

v.11-18: In the OT God speaks judgement, particularly against the use of the mouth ("throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceives. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness")

v. 19: Why does God speak like this? "so that every mouth may be stopped."

No more questions.

Actually, genuine questions are good...

Why should we celebrate the justification of God in his contention against humanity? The answer must be Jesus. It is because God's justification is in the incarnate Christ it is also the justification of sinful humanity too! Our justification is God's justification.

In faith, one takes the side of God in his claim against one's self, giving God justice. At the same time, one takes hold of God's gift in Christ, whom he has 'put forward' as an atonement and in whom he has taken the side of the sinner. In Christ and in faith, the justification of God the Creator meets the justification of the godless.

(Mark A. Seifrid, p. 18, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2)

God's judgement

How can we know that God hates evil? How can we know what hell is like? How can we believe that justice is done in this universe?

• Romans 1:18-32: It is seen in our experience - just look around, and you can see hell.
• Romans 3:1-20: It is declared verbally in the Bible which repeatedly shows that we are in the wrong and the consequences of that.
• Romans 3:21-31: It is executed to the full on Jesus Christ

It is important to see that each is clearer than the one proceeding it.

There is a crescendo as the ugly theme becomes louder and louder, so that it is tempting to cover your ears.

Irreligious folks block their ears early in the crescendo when they suppress the knowledge of God in their experience.

Religious folks hear what their experience says, but when things become sharper and more personal when God addresses them in the Bible they put a different kind of ear-plug in. They say the Bible isn't really addressed to them because it was for a different era, or that it was for the younger son living immorally far from home.

But Christians listen to the full crescendo despite the unpleasantness. This is not because they rejoice in the oppressive noise but because they want to have their ears utterly unblocked for the crash at the end which ends that discordant note and marks the beginning of a new and beautiful melody.

Romans 1

A few textual notes on Romans 1 (with a lot of help from AJ):

• God's "power" is "declared"/"revealed" in three places:
1. Jesus: The declaration of Christ to be the Son of God in the resurrection of Jesus (v.4)
2. The Church: The Gospel which brings salvation (v.16)
3. Creation: In the things that are made (v.20)
• God's power creates life in all three instances
• Paul longs to see the Christians in Rome because he is "eager" to preach the Gospel to them. Do we have that same passion?
• "from faith for faith" could mirror the "Jew first and also to the Greek" in the previous verse. In which case faith is from the Jews for the sake of the world. That mixture of mission and Jew/Gentile relationship would fit with the theme of the letter as a whole.
• In verses 23-25 we are told that men "exchanged...God" for created things, and so God "gave them up". In verses 26-27 we are told that women "exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature...and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women". Sensitive thing to speculate about, but the parallel would seem to be deliberate. The patterns of our relationship with God are replayed on the smaller scale of human relationships.
• Verses 18-32 goes through 3 cycles of denying God->sin. In the first two cycles the sin is sexual immorality, in the third cycle Paul widens the fallout to all kinds of (mainly horizontal) sin. Why? Perhaps to build up to 2:1. We all get busy judging those committing those sexual sins which are markers of a world in rebellion, then in the third cycle our sins are equated with them and the condemnation which we've applauded suddenly falls on us and Paul declares "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." The rhetoric is quite powerful, but also deeply theological. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Rich in giving

Romans 11:36:

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

These simple words of praise give an all-encompassing view of the world and its purpose. All things come from God, are sustained through him, and will eventually flow back to him as the ultimate Owner of everything...

God did not create to satisfy any inadequacy or need of his own, but out of the fullness of his delight and love, this delight and love flow to the creatures as generosity and back to God as thanksgiving and praise...Our good has by his hand become a means of God's ultimate glory, intrinsically connected (cf. Ezek. 36:22-27)...

As God's giving does not impoverish but enriches him, so we as we offer back to God the fits he has given and sanctified in us, are enriched in his glory and satisfied in and through him.

(pp.24-25, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

Your law is my delight

(HT Tim)

"I long for your salvation, O Lord,
and your law is my delight.
Let my soul live and praise you,
and let your rules help me.
I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant,
for I do not forget your commandments."

(Psalm 119:174-176)

"I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

(Romans 7:22-25)

Both passages include:

• delight in the law; and
• a realisation of our failure to keep it.

After this common starting point:

• The OT passage includes a prayer to be delivered.
• The NT passage includes thanks that we have been delivered.

A few notes on not coveting

Listening to: Belle and Sebastian: The Life Pursuit

Mark 10:19 (parallel: Luke 18:20)

The Christianity Explored booklet asks "What did Jesus expect the man to notice about his list of the commandments in Mark 10:19?" I can't remember what it exactly wants to answer to be, but you have commands 5-9 listed - i.e. not the first table and not the command not to covet. I think Jesus was pointing out to the rich young man that while he had not done the external acts prohibited by the second table of the law, he had not obeyed the spirit of them.

I have been challenged before that honouring your father and mother is not an external act but, like coveting, is about the state of your heart. But Exodus 21:15-17 expounds the commandment as not striking or cursing your parents. Deuteronomy 27:16 talks about not dishonouring and Matthew 15:4 (parallel: Mark 7:10) expands on honouring by saying that it is not reviling. All of which suggests it was seen more as an external act.

1 Timothy 1:9-10

the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers [5th commandment], for murderers [6th], the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [7th], enslavers [8th? cf. Deuteronomy 24:7], liars, perjurers [9th], and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Again the absence of the 10th commandment not to covet is notable. Also interestingly, I believe the Reformers considered this passage to be mainly about the 'civil use of the law'.

Hosea 4:2

there is swearing, lying [9th], murder [6th], stealing [8th], and committing adultery [7th]; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed.

... no commandment to honour father and mother, or not to covet.

James 4:2

You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.

James sees coveting as the cause behind murder. Justifiably you could also quite easily see that it is the cause of breaking all the rest of the second table, or at least commandments 6-9. This is anticipated in part within the 10th commandment itself which lists some of the things we may covet - i.e. wives who we may commit adultery with and possessions we may steal.

Romans 7

When Paul chooses to explain how the law works to bring knowledge of sin, he picks the commandment not to covet. Mark Seifrid commenting on this passage explains this not an insignificant choice:

All other transgressions against other (the dishonouring of parents, murder, adultery, theft and false witness, and so on) have their root in coveting, which is the antithesis of the love commandment. In this commandment the whole weight of the law comes to bear on us.

(p. 117, Christ Our Righteousness)

Obey the gospel - send missionaries

Listening to: JS Bach, Mass in B Minor - I'm going to nick Dan Hames' habit and start doing this. Sometimes its hard to keep quiet about stuff you're loving, so this gives me an additional excuse to vent. Plus you may find out something about me!

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

"Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world."

19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,

"I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,

"I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

(Romans 10:14-21)

Glen has provoked me to make sense of the flow of this passage. I think I now have, thanks mainly to the insights of my learned housemate with whom I had a good session thrashing over it this evening. I think it taught us:

• to support for world mission
• to be humble because the whole world is disobedient
• to be happy that this means that all missionaries are forgiven sinners and so preach a message which is not 'be like me and be good' but 'be forgiven like me'
• to witness to Christ in a way which makes it clear we are sinners, not standing over non-Christians in judgment
• to be amazed at the complexity and non-instinctual way in which God achieves his purposes.
• God gets the glory, not us.

Briefly, this is what I think is going on.

vv.14-15a: is a pretty easy to understand chain of how people are saved. People call on God because they have heard the gospel, because someone preached to them, because someone sent that missionary to them.

15b: missionary activity is a beautiful thing. Get with the program! Specifically Paul's program for his mission to Spain.

16a: the Jews have not got with the program. They have not been missionaries to the world. When Paul says they did not obey the gospel, he does not mean they did not believe it for their own salvation. The gospel is usually something that we believe, accept or confess for our salvation. We obey it in obeying its implicit call to spread it. We obey the gospel by supporting God's mission to the world.

16b: is a quotation from Isaiah 53:1a. The reasons the Jews are not sending out missionaries declaring the coming of the Messiah is that Jews did not believe that the suffering Jesus hung on a cross, was the promised Messiah.

17: Summarising vv.14-16.

18: Psalm 19 has already been told to the Jews so they should know about God's universal purposes. They should know about general revelation, and so should realise that God plans salvation for all people. He has been speaking to all people through creation, so the Jews should follow his lead and take the gospel to all people.

19: Even the beginning of the bible ('first Moses') tells the Jews of God's purposes for the gentiles, although it also says that they will be jealous of them.

20: Isaiah much later ('then') says the same thing and says that God has purposes for the gentiles to, although again points out that the Jews won't like it.

21: The Jews have not listened to their vocation but instead been disobedient.

Challenge to the Romans and to us: be obedient, see God's universal purposes. Support mission, and marvel at God's universal love.

Brief thoughts. Feedback appreciated. All responsibility for any mistakes belongs to my housemate.

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.

• Further thoughts on reading Romans: Reading Romans backwards

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.

The adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev 20)

'Or do you not know, brothers — for I am speaking to those who know the law — that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.' (Romans 7:1-3)

In the OT Israel is often depicted as the unfaithful wife of God. They were married to one another through the Mosaic covenant. However, Israel broke the covenant countless times by committing adultery by worshipping other gods. God kept taking Israel back despite the requirements of his own law that the adulteress shall be put to death (with the man/god she committed adultery with).

God's promise and his law were in conflict, and there seemed no way in which he could fail to be true to one or the other. He kept on passing over the former sins of his wife but he couldn't keep on doing that forever without denying the truthfulness of the very thing that bound them together.

But what if instead of the adulteress dying, the faithful husband died? Then the adulteress could have relationships with other men without penalty, because the covenant that brings the curse no longer exists.

PS. Sorry once again Chris for breaking my own promise. It is still top of my mind, but I wanted to get down my random thoughts on Romans 7.

Truth and lies in Romans

• 'the wrath of God is revealed...against...men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth' (1:18)
• 'they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator' (1:25)
• 'for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.' (2:8)
• 'if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth — you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?' (2:19-21)
• 'Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words"' (3:4)
• 'But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?' (3:7)
• 'Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive' (3:13)
• 'sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me' (7:11)
• 'I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit — that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.' (9:1-2)
• 'you will say "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true.' (11:19-20)
• 'Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs' (15:8)
• 'such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.' (16:18)

So, I went through Romans like that because I'm trying to understand how Sin deceived Paul through the commandment (7:11). Not sure if it has helped. Does anyone have any thoughts?

Moo says Sin '"deceived" Israel into thinking it could obtain life through [the law]'. Calvin is no help. I haven't got Luther on Romans.

The law came in to increase the trespass

The law is not a remedy for sin. It does not cure sin but rather makes it worse. St. Paul says it was given to make sin apparent, indeed, even to increase it. It doesn't do that necessarily by increasing immortality, although that can happen when rebellion or the power of suggestion leads us to do just what the law is against. But what the theologian of the cross sees clearly from the start,is that, more perversely, the law multiplies sin precisely through our morality, our misuse of the law and our success at it. It becomes a defence against the gift.

(italics original (bold by me), p.27, Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518)

So the law does not increase sin by making us more like younger brothers, but like older brothers which is worse.

I can't believe that this thought is new to me. It is one of those occasions where I wonder whether after all my reading I'm still yet to really get Luther's main points.

But does it make sense of Romans 7 to see sin increased by:

(a) increasing immortality; or

(b) through our morality as a defence against the gift?

I'm not sure. But I think the fact that it is the sin's deceit that Paul draws attention to (v.7) may support Luther and Forde.

Romans, written for us

Here is a fairly rough breakdown of 'who Paul is addressing' in Romans:

Chap 1: Gentiles	Chap 2: Jews
Chap 6: Gentiles	Chap 7: Jews

To some degree that is helpful, but it is not quite the structure as it is in Romans. It is more like:

Chap 1: Everyone	Chap 2: Jews as representatives of everyone
Chap 6: Everyone	Chap 7: Jews as representatives of everyone

Romans is not just written for us in the sense that an analogy between the Jews and Gentiles can be drawn with us. We are ourselves being addressed through the original addressees.

We must get away from the thinking that Romans 1 is addressed to Gentiles. It is about all humanity. We must also get away from thinking that the Jews were just a particular historical people under a particular God-given historical law that is only analogous to our situation. They were always the representatives of all humanity, and we misunderstand the bible if we think they were just an example.

The missing commandment

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 13:28-31)

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 8:8-10)

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Galatians 5:13-14)

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing well. (James 2:8)

Does anyone else find it odd that of the two greatest commandments which sum up the law, Paul and James say only the second is necessary to 'fulfil' the law. To love your neighbour as yourself keeps the whole law according to Paul. But what about the God-ward commandment, which is the first not just in order but priority?

While that may just seem an oddity, the fact we are still required keep such a sweeping commandment creates an additional problem. We often remind people that nobody loves God with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength. But isn't the second great commandment equally impossible? It is very nice of God to 'let us off' having to keep the first commandment, but the second will break us as well. Not very freeing is it?

Yet Paul in Galatians says that loving our neighbour as ourselves is living in freedom. James says we have to do what the 'law of liberty' says (1:25) which is presumably the same as the 'royal law' of 2:8. However, we may feel that far from being free we are still living under subjection to commands and laws if we have to obey this great (OT, indeed Mosaic) commandment. True, it seems we are given a little more freedom to work out what loving our neighbour may mean in practice. Rather than having it spelled out in detail for us (e.g. command to leave the edges of the field for the poor, Leviticus 19:9) we can decide the best way to help to help our neighbour ourself. But when Paul talks about freedom, he means more than this. He means freedom from the curse of not keeping the law and freedom from the sin it enlivens.

Perhaps the solution is contained in Luther's famous observation, in The Freedom of the Christian, of how we are both free and enslaved as Christians:

A Christian is perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.

A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.

The first statement concerns our God-ward relationship. The second statement our human-ward relationships. They relate to what Luther described as two different kinds of righteousness.

The distinction between two kinds of righteousness rests upon the observation that there are two dimensions to being a human creature. One dimension involves our life with God, especially in the matters of death and salvation. The other dimension involves our life with God’s creatures and our activity in this world. In the former we receive righteousness before God through faith on account of Christ. In the latter, we achieve righteousness in the eyes of the world by works when we carry out our God-given responsibilities.

(Charles Arand on Melancthton's Apology)

These two dimensions of life are not unconnected, as Jesus demonstrates clearly when he answers the question 'Which commandment [singular] is the most important of all?' with two commandments. However they are ordered and distinguishable.

Only being righteous in the first (vertical) dimension can lead to being righteous in the second. But being righteous in the second cannot bring righteousness in the first. As Luther says: 'Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked man, but a wicked man does evil works' (Freedom of the Christian). This is because it is God who justifies (Romans 8:33) and the judgment of men is meaningless (Luke 16:15). It is our relationship to God which defines whether we are righteous or not.

But God's justifying declaration, like all his words is creative. So righteousness in the first dimension not only can but will lead to righteousness in the second dimension. That is why Paul can express such incredulity when despite being justified before God we are not acting as just people in the world, and why James says that Abraham's 'faith was completed by his works' (2:22). If God has declared us righteous in Christ by faith, in the promise of baptism, then we must be righteous not just before God but before men.

This certainty that one kind of righteousness will lead to the other is why (human-ward) works do not supply something that (God-ward) faith lacks, but instead 'perfect' or 'complete' faith. As Seifrid comments on James' statement that we are justified by works:

His formulation is important: he does not say that they were justified 'by faith and works', but they were justified by works alone! Justification ultimately must be by works, because works are faith's perfection [...] works that justify are never alone. They are an outworking of faith, which is present with them

(pp.180-181, Mark Seifrid, Christ our Righteousness)

So works do not fulfil a law which has not already been fulfilled by Christ who is received by faith. Instead they complete what has already begun, in one sense what has already happened, in Christ's death and resurrection. This is why James says that in Abraham's work of offering up Isaac 'the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"' (2:23). What God had promised before the act (that Abraham was righteous) was being played out (fulfilled) in his obedience through his faith in that promise. God did not lie in speaking when Abraham was a sinner, but created the reality.

This word is perhaps what James is talking about in 1:23-25. He says:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

The word tells us who we are in Christ Jesus. We are righteous in God's sight because Jesus loved God with all his heart, mind and strength. We can forget that truth and so don't live like it is true. But if we remember that image of ourselves, and believe it, we will act like it.

Does that makes sense? I've sort of skated along at quite a rate pulling in quite a bit of stuff, and maybe haven't been quite as focused as I should have been.

Further thoughts here.

SVNDE VERGYBT

I am beginning to develop a theory that there is a Luther factoid that relates to almost any topic of conversation. My friends are probably starting to get a bit tired of my trying to work out if this theory is borne out in practice.

The latest factoid I have learnt was that 'Luther had only one phrase of the entire German Bible typeset in capital letters: SVNDE VERGJBT (forgives sins) (Rom. 3:25), which he further identified in a marginal gloss as "the chief point" and the "center-point of this epistle and the entire Scripture"' (p.76, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology).

Anyway, this post is to kick off a few more posts on Luther's theology. I know my few readers will probably agree with my friends that I am perhaps a little obsessive, but while I am reading other stuff it is just not quite as interesting to me!

The Spirit of Christ

A bible study introducing the Holy Spirit. Specifically with the aim of showing up the connections with the historical Jesus and how we can receive him. Please feel free to give some suggestions for improvements.

MARK 1:4-11

⁴And so John came, baptising in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. ⁵The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptised by him in the Jordan River. ⁶John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. ⁷And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. ⁸I baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit."

⁹At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. ¹¹And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

What does John say the difference between his baptism and Jesus' baptism is?
> John baptised with water, Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit

What 3 things happen to Jesus at the Jordan river?
1. He is baptised by John
2. Spirit descends on him like a dove
3. God the Father declares that Jesus is his son

[Note: Jesus did not need to be baptised because he needed to repent and be forgiven (compare Matthew 3:13-15). Baptism is linked with repentance and death (Mark 10:35-40; Romans 6:3-4). Jesus was baptised when he didn't need to for the same reason he died when he didn't need to. To identify with sinners and go ahead before them to face God's judgment against sin, and the new life of resurrection.
Similarly, he did not become God's Son at his baptism. He was already his Son before he was sent to this world (John 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9-14).]

ACTS 2:22-41

Peter speaking to a crowd in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus died, was raised from the dead and went to heaven:

²²"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. ²³This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. ²⁴But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

[...]

³²God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. ³³Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ³⁴For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand ³⁵until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '

³⁶"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

³⁷When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

³⁸Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

⁴⁰With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." ⁴¹Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Once Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God what does he do?

> Pour out the promised Holy Spirit, which he received (again), on the disciples.

To receive the Spirit what did the hearers of Peter need to do?

> Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins?
> Through that the promise must be believed. What is the appropriate response to a promise? Faith!

ROMANS 8:5-16

⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

⁹You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. ¹⁰But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. ¹¹And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

¹²Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. ¹³For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, ¹⁴because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. ¹⁵For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." ¹⁶The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

What difference does living in accordance with the Spirit make?

> Desiring what the Spirit desires (v.5).
> Life and peace, not death and hostility toward God (vv.6-7; 13).
> Adoption as God's children (vv.14-16)

What is the connection between the Spirit, Jesus Christ and us?
> Both are 'in' Christians (v.9)
> The Spirit gave life to Jesus and to Christians (v.11)
> The Spirit goes together with being children of God (vv.14-16). Christians are children of God, and Jesus was declared to be at his baptism (Mark 1:11).

How do you feel about the idea of the Spirit of Christ 'in you'?
> Invasive?
> Controlling? [so is sin, but this control gives you freedom (Romans 8:2; 2 Corinthians 3:17).]
> Impossible to grasp? [Spirit in the background always pointing us to Christ. The Spirit himself is not visible just his effects, like wind (John 3:8).]


[OPTIONAL EXTRA:]

PHILIPPIANS 2:1-11

¹If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ²then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. ³Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. ⁴Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

⁵Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

⁶Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! ⁹Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What does a life in fellowship with the Spirit look like?
> Christ-like
> Humble to the extent of counting yourself nothing
> Selflessly serving others to the extent of dying