17, 20 March 2016

Scripture: Romans 5:12-13

Observations:

All right. In this passage, Paul is making three distinct points.

1) Sin, and death, the punishment of sin, came into the world through Adam and has permeated mankind, even when the Law was not yet given. (vv 12-14)

Now, there are a couple points here worth noting. Paul explicitly notes that all of sin entered the world through Adam. It is because of his sin that mankind is inherently sinful. Next, he notes that, even though the law had not yet been given, sin was still considered sin before Moses' time.

I will say that verse 13 took me a while to understand. So, I broke it into parts and consulted some commentaries

1. [F]or sin indeed was in the world before the law was given.
   This is pretty straightforward to me. Adam's disobedience constituted sin, ergo sin was present before the law was given to Moses, generations later
2. but sin is not counted where there is no law.
   This was a good deal trickier. At first, it appears like Paul is saying that sin was present, but not punished, which we know is not so, after all, we have the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the curse of Cain, and even the exile of Adam and Eve. Not to mention, death, the prescribed punishment, had been in the world the whole time as sin had become such that God began scaling back the lifespan of man from multiple hundreds to barely a single hundred. So, I looked at the Greek and both uses of "law" involve the same word, which doesn't help. Next, I looked at some commentaries, namely Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, A Popular Commentary on the New Testament, John Wesley's Explanatory Notes, Jameson, Fausset, & Brown Commentary, John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, and The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (e-Sword is a valuable reference tool). Of all those, I think the last two put it best (Though Popular had some good exposition into the varying theories surrounding this passage) :
   
   "but sin is not imputed when there is no law. This looks like an objection, that if there was no law before Moses's time, then there was no sin, nor could any action of man be known or accounted by them as sinful, or be imputed to them to condemnation; or rather it is a concession, allowing that where there is no law, sin is not imputed; but there was a law before that law of Moses, which law was transgressed, and the sin or transgression of it was imputed to men to condemnation and death, as appears from what follows." - Gill
   
   "for until the law] This and the following verses are not a parenthesis: see on Rom_5:12.—“Until” here practically = “before.” The period “from Adam to Moses” is in view, the Law of Moses being taken as the first elaborate statute-giving of God for man. “Laws” existed long before Moses; e.g. those of Marriage, of the sanctity of Life, and of the Sabbath. But the Mosaic Law covered the field of duty in a way unknown before; so as to suggest the question whether human beings, in the previous ages, in some instances, had not satisfied the claims of then-known duty, and so escaped death. But no: in those ages, as in the Mosaic, “death reigned;” therefore there was sin; therefore there was broken law; and that law, in numberless cases, (viz. infantine,) must have been broken only “in Adam;” for it was unknown to the persons in question.law … law] Both these words in the Gr. are without the article. In spite of some difficulty, we must interpret the first of the Mosaic Law, and the second of Law in some other sense; here probably in the sense of the declared Will of God in general, against which, in a particular case, Adam sinned, and we “in him.”is not imputed] So as to bring penalty. Therefore, had there been in no sense a (broken) law in the primeval age, there would have been no death. But death was universal." - Cambridge
   
   So, then, at the very least, we see that mankind is punished for its sin according to Adam's disobedience. We can also see that mankind is punished for its inherent sinful nature, a result of Adam's sin. The question I would ask is whether man is punished for committed sin and, if so, according to what standard?
1. By all appearances, man is punished before the Mosaic law for committed sin. Take the examples given above: Adam and Eve's punishment and exile, the cursing of Cain, the flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Each of these followed the commission of some kind of transgression against God
1. In the case of Adam and Eve's punishment and exile, they were punished for direct disobedience of God's command (Gen 2:15-17). They were then exiled to be kept from eating the fruit of the tree of life, thereby escaping the final punishment of sin, death (Gen 3:22-24)
2. In the case of Cain, he was warned in advance that he was close to sinning, due to the attitude of his heart (Gen 4:5b-7). When he did sin, God declared that Abel's blood was crying out to him from the ground (Gen 4:10)
3. In the case of the flood, God decided within himself that mankind had become increasingly wicked, later disclosing that decision and punishment to Noah (Gen 6:6-7, 11-13)
4. Lastly, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God decided within himself that they were living in sin and disclosed that to Abraham (Gen 18:16-21)
2. 
   

15 March 2016

Scripture: Romans 5:1-11

Observations:

So, Paul begins at the tail end of yesterday: because we have been justified by our faith, we have peace with God and have access into his grace. Having access to his grace, we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (vv 1-2)

Here comes one of Paul's trickier, loaded statements: we rejoice in our sufferings

• Sufferings --> endurance
• Endurance --> character
• Character --> hope (vv 3-4)

Hope, Paul writes, does not put us to shame. Why? Because God's love has been poured into our hearts via the Holy Spirit (v 5)

Paul then breaks down the idea of God's love.

• When Christ died for us sinners, we were still weak, unable to save ourselves (v 6)
• While we humans may consider dying for the sake of another who is exceptionally good or righteous, Christ died for us while we were still living in sin, distant from him in disobedience. (vv 7-8)

Christ did for us, his then enemies, what we could not do for ourselves. In doing so, he modeled what love looks like - sacrificial and unconditional.

The effect of Christ's sacrifice, offering justification on our behalf, is that we are saved from God's wrath and judgment. (v 9) Paul presents it interestingly. If we are considered to have been reconciled to God by Christ's death, then we are saved (Gk: σώζω - saved [from death, peril], delivered, protected, healed) by his life. (v 10) Some scholars assert that this means that because Christ lives, we are eternally saved. So, we are justified by his death (that is, freed from all consequences of past and present sin) and secured by his resurrection (that is, no future sin will affect our standing before God), is what Paul seems to be saying.

Paul wraps up this segment with rejoicing. He began by speaking of rejoicing in suffering and the hope of the glory of God and he ends by speaking of rejoicing in God in gratitude for our reconciliation. (v 11) In between the "bread slices" of rejoicing, we have the filling of our literary sandwich - the reason for rejoicing in suffering, the magnitude of God's love in dying for sinners, and the reconciling and saving effects of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Application:

I'll be honest. This passage is one I have difficulty seeing how to apply. The only thing I can think of is gratitude to God for acting in such mercy. He didn't have to, but because he loved us so much, he did.

14 March 2016

Scripture: Romans 4:13-25

Observations:

Paul begins this segment following after the previous passage (remember, Paul didn't divide his epistles into handy chapters and verses, that was a later development)

So, we have the idea that Abraham's faith being counted as righteousness before the covenant of circumcision leading to Abraham being the father of both the faithful circumcised and the righteous uncircumcised, which is where Paul picks up.

Paul makes a bold statement that Abraham's promise came by faith, not by the law. He then contrasts it, that if it came from the law, faith would be null and void. It would no longer be a promise upon faith, to trust in, but a wage that is earned. To my mind, it acts almost as a filter, as any person, righteous or not, can follow a set of laws. Well, in the case of God's all-encompassing laws and high requirements, not so - no-one can follow that set of laws perfectly except Christ. Hence the promise is void, as no one would ever manage to receive it.

Then Paul makes this statement: "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression." (v 15)

True. The law defines sin. There is now a codified set of ethics. Where before conduct could be quibbled over and considered fluid (much as in today's society), after the writing of the law there was no denying that certain acts were unacceptable, subject to trial by a supernatural, all-perfect judge.

So, the law serves to provide awareness of unrighteousness.

Instead, the promise rests on grace - it is dependent on God's action, not man's and serves as surety that all of Abraham's descendants, circumcised or not, are subject to the promise.

Paul then elaborates on the faith of Abraham in the promises of God given to him, unwavering in his belief that God could make good on his promise.

It is for that reason his faith was credited to him as righteousness.

Similarly, for us, our faith in the resurrection of Jesus and his deliverance of us from our sins, which led to our justification, will be attributed to us as righteousness

11 March 2016

Scripture: Romans 4:1-12

Observations:

So, let's review quickly the end of Romans 3.

• "One is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (v 28)
• "[God] will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." (v 30)

Now in this passage, Paul brings two questions to the attention of the Roman church.

Q1) What was gained by Abraham according to the flesh? (v 1)

Verse two says that if Abraham were justified by works, then he would be able to boast before man, but not before God. That doesn't quite mesh well with what we know of Abraham, so thremust be some greater reason for Abraham's justification. To that end, I want to take a snapshot of the next few verses.

• "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness" (v3)
• To the worker, wages are counted as his due, not a gift (paraphrased, v 4)
• To him who did not put his faith in works, but believed God, his faith is counted as righteousness (paraphrased, v 5)
• David called blessed the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works (paraphrased, v 6)
• "Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." (v 8)

Now, yes, I paraphrased a few verses to truncate some of the wordage, but the word I want to stress is unchanged: λογίζομαι. (Strong's numbers are great for the lay scholar)

λογίζομαι is a word meaning "to take an inventory," "to estimate," "to conclude," "to account for/of," "to impute, reason, reckon, or suppose."

Paul is saying that, just as a worker's wages are accounted (reckoned, reasoned, supposed, allocated, etc.) to him as his due according to his work, so is righteousness accounted to the one who believes in God as his due according to his faith.

Clearly, then, we can see that what Abraham gained was nothing that could be attributed to his ability. What he gained, then, was not according to the flesh, as it was not based upon his ability to keep the law, but was according to God, as it was based upon his faith.

Q2) "Is this blessing only for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised?" (v 9)
(Or, how was Abraham's faith counted? Was it before or after circumcision? (v 10a)

This question is key. Depending on the answer, it would affirm that either Paul is logically inconsistent and that justification by faith is contingent upon adherence to the law and circumcision is necessary, or that circumcision is unnecessary and adherence to the law is a response from faith.

Paul answers this question in the second half of verse ten, saying that circumcision came after righteousness was counted to him as the wages of his faith. Therefore, as Paul puts it, "circumcision was a sign of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." (v 11)

This is a big deal, because that then makes him the father of the righteous uncircumcised as well as the circumcised who believe in God through faith! (v 11-12)

8 March 2016

Scripture: Romans 3:21-31

Observations:

So, right off the bat, Paul clarifies that the righteousness of God has made itself known apart from the Law. He is quick to note, however, that the Law and the prophets hint as to how it would be revealed, the specific manifestation of God's righteousness is available through faith in Jesus.

Paul answers the looming question of "Why" in just a moment.

You see, as Paul writes, he clarifies that all of us have sinned and we all deserve death because we no longer reach God's standard of righteousness.

Paul says it outright in vv 24-25. God's justification of man is a gift, one received by faith. Because of this show of righteousness, a man's sins are overlooked and God is fully able to act justly while acting mercifully towards a man's sins.

In light of all this, Paul remarks, "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded." Because our salvation is based upon faith in Christ, we have nothing to boast over. He closes, stating that this does't mean we have no need to follow the Law. As he puts it, "[W]e uphold the law."

Application:

I cannot boast. My deliverance from temptation and sin is not of my own ability and strength, but by the mercy and grace of God who, in a display of righteousness, justice, and love, redeemed me from my sinful nature and desires through the payment of my punishment by Jesus, His Son, who is fully man and fully God, seated at the right hand of the throne of the Father.

Every victory over temptation and sin is a testament to the redemptive work taking place within me, as I am being sanctified, being remade in the image of God.

So, I cling to God and seek to honour him. I follow the Law not as a means for salvation, but because it is the directive of God for how to live. I do not boast over my successes in following the law, because I know such successes are only the providence of God,

1 March 2016

Scripture: Romans 3:1-8

Observations:

Paul follows from yesterday with a statement that there is still some benefit to having been a Jew or having been circumcised. (Remember, Paul was laying into the hypocrisy of those who had the law and were physically circumcised, but were living contrary to the law, stating how they were, in essence, uncircumcised).

The first benefit is that the Jews were entrusted with the word of God. So what if some of the Jews were unfaithful. Does their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness? (Similarly, does a Christian's non-Christlikeness negate the nature of Christ?) No. In fact, Paul goes so far as to say, "Let God be true though everyone were a liar."

"If our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say, that God is unrighteous for judging us?" Before I interject, wait for Paul's answer.

"By no means! For then, how could God judge the world?"

If God is perfectly righteous and perfectly just, there is no way he cannot punish unrighteousness. Once again, our false perception of innate human goodness skews our perception of God. We deserve nothing but death from God. The fact that God has made redemption possible is astounding enough as it is.

Following this, Paul raises a couple questions in a Devil's advocate manner:

• "But if through my lie, God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?"
• "And why not do evil that good may come?"

These are actually questions Christians at the time had been accused of asking.

Now, yes, Paul answers these questions later, but I would ask these questions: If we have repented and committed to following Christ, how could we willingly and intentionally commit sin? How could we tolerate or even enjoy sinning?

So, God works despite our failures and His nature is highlighted by our flaws, but that does not give us license to engage in sin. Let me refer you to yesterday's passage (which I was too tired to do justice). Read vv 17-24. In claiming allegiance to God and engaging in sin, you dishonour God and blaspheme His name amongst the unsaved, turning them away from the gospel

Application:

Seek God first.

Seek to honour God. If I fail, then I fail, but I will not engage willingly in sin. I will constantly seek God.

29 February 2016

Scripture: Romans 2:12-29

Observations:

This is a hefty segment, following after the last passage. I'll try to complete the passage tonight, but I may end up tapping out mid-way. We'll see what God has in store.

In vv 12-13, we see that God will judge man by what he knows. If he does not know the law, then he dies outside the law. If he knows the Law, then he will be judged by the Law. Paul is making an initial statement, saying that knowledge of the Law is not sufficient for salvation.

He makes this point in vv 14-16 wherein he states that a Gentile who follow the Law, though he does not know the Law and its requirements, bears evidence of the Law being written on their hearts.

Paul then flips the tables in vv 17-24 wherein he addresses the Jews, who relied on the Law and prided themselves on their adherence to the Law. He calls them out for practising the opposite of what they preach. As Paul writes in v 23, "You who boast in the Law dishonour God by breaking the law."

Lastly we see Paul's take on circumcision. In vv 25-29, Paul makes some key statements:

1. Physical circumcision only has value when paired with obedience
2. An uncircumcised man who follows the Law is considered circumcised

Paul makes it very clear here that God is not interested in the outward circumcision, the following of Laws for Laws' statement. God bases judgment on  the internal circumcision. In fact, the  externally circumcised individual who does not follow the Law is judged more sternly because he know what is right and did not do it.

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."  Romans 2:28-29

Salvation is not dependent upon ourselves via the Law, but on God. Paul takes the opportunity of speaking out against the Judaizers and their pro-circumcision stance. He also speaks to the couch potatoes.

It's late. I know what Paul is meaning. I'm just having a difficult time putting the puzzle pieces our livesit together