# comment

text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:19'>Rom 1:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it to them</em>- “Known” is Gk:&nbsp;<em>gnostos</em>. This may be a strike at incipient Gnosticism; for Paul says that such knowledge, such&nbsp;<em>gnosis</em>, is showed to people&nbsp;<em>by God</em>. There are only some things which God makes known to us about Himself; we do not have the total truth about God, we see but parts of His ways and hear only a little portion of Him (<em><a href='B:220 26:14'>Job 26:14</a></em>). Our perception and definition of “the truth” needs to bear this in mind. Absolute truth claims aren’t simply ignorant, they lead to all manner of relationship breakdown, arrogance and deformation of spirituality both in ourselves and others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:20'>Rom 1:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen</em>- a paradox, seeing the invisible. Such vision is only by faith:&nbsp; In the context, Paul is referring to those responsible to God. They are those who ‘see’ by faith, they are therefore inexcusable. One can have faith, even the faith that sees the invisible, and yet still ‘not get it’. See on <em><a href='B:520 8:19'>Rom 8:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Being perceived through the things that are made</em>. The translation here is difficult. The invisible things of God are clearly seen in the things He makes- but the only other usage of the Greek word is in <em><a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a></em>: “We are His&nbsp;<em>workmanship</em>, created in Christ Jesus”. The idea could be that the things of God are made visible, the abstract things of His power, personality and Name are made concrete and tangible- in us His people. We are living witnesses to His power and Divinity.</p><p><em>Even His everlasting power and Divinity- that they may be without excuse</em>- A legal term. The court of Divine judgment is sitting right now, and we who are His people are without excuse for our sin. Paul is building up slowly towards the crescendo of presenting us all as serious, inexcusable sinners, who can be saved by grace alone:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For although they knew God-&nbsp;</em>Only those who ‘know God’ have the potential to give Him glory and true thanks; but the problem is that some can know God and yet not go forward from that point to glorify God. Knowledge of God isn’t therefore an academic matter in itself; it leads on to gratitude towards Him and glory of Him.</p><p><em>They did not honour Him as God or give thanks to Him-&nbsp;</em>To “honour” here is to praise. Fundamentally praise is mental appreciation of Yahweh's Name, seeing His characteristics expressed in all things around us, e.g. food, weather, situations in life etc. Knowledge of God (and this doesn't&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;refer to abstract doctrine, but to an awareness of how He works and expresses Himself in our lives) is therefore proportionate to the quality of our praise (<em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>).</p><p><em>But they became futile in their thinking-&nbsp;</em>Or 'Imaginations', Gk:&nbsp;<em>dialogismos</em>. Their internal dialogues with themselves, the internal self, the mind at its deepest and most personal level, became vain- when the true knowledge of God should have made them so much more dynamic, purposeful and productive. The focus of the Bible is so often upon the ‘heart’, the most intimate and internal thought processes.</p><p><em>And their foolish hearts were darkened-</em>&nbsp;The foolish heart of Israel was darkened / blinded, the Greek implies (<em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>). God gave them a mind which wanted to practice perversion (v:28), and therefore they received a recompense appropriate to the delusion which they had been given (v. 27 Gk:) . Note that their punishment was to be given and encouraged in perverted tendencies (diseases like AIDS are the result of upsetting nature's balance rather than the recompense spoken of in Romans 1). Christian men in the first century gave themselves over to sexual immorality (<em><a href='B:560 4:19'>Eph 4:19</a></em>), and therefore God "gave them over to a reprobate mind" (<em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em>). “Blind yourselves and be blind”, God angrily remonstrated with Israel; yet God had closed their eyes, confirming them in the decision for blindness which they had taken themselves (<em><a href='B:290 29:9-10'>Isa 29:9-10</a></em> RVmg:). Later in Romans, Paul speaks of the Jews as the ones whose hearts were darkened (<em><a href='B:520 11:10'>Rom 11:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:22'>Rom 1:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Professing themselves to be wise, they became&nbsp;fools</em>- “Became” implies that this is all talking about the people of God, who once were wise, but&nbsp;<em>became</em>&nbsp;fools. S:w. <em><a href='B:470 5:13'>Mat 5:13</a></em> about the salt “which loses its taste”, lit. ‘becomes foolish’. However it is God who makes worldly wise people foolish (<em><a href='B:530 1:20'>1Co 1:20</a></em> s:w:), just as in v. 21 it is God who darkens eyes. There’s a downward spiral, in which God is active and the dynamic within it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>And exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God-&nbsp;</em>Again a paradox is presented- the incorruptible, unchangeable God is changed by mere men. Perhaps the point is that the glory of God, the extent to and form in which He is glorified, is to some extent in our hands. We can in this sense deface His image by the distorted reflection of it which we give. Note how they turned the image of God into the image of man; whereas the Lord Jesus, as a man, became in the image of God (<em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>). The implication from Paul’s reasoning is that whatever we worship becomes God to us, and therefore we have re-cast God into that image. In a world of obsessions, we are to ‘worship’ God alone, and not reduce Him to the petty things which people waste their devotions upon.</p><p><em>For the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted animals, and creeping things-&nbsp;</em>The commands concerning Israel's behaviour after they had settled in the land form a large chunk of the Mosaic Law, and thus these were only relevant to the younger generation and the Levites who were to enter the land of promise (note how only those who were numbered and over 20 at the time of leaving Egypt were barred from the land; the Levites were not numbered). This younger generation were in sharp contrast to those aged over 20 at the Exodus. The extent of spiritual despair and apostasy amongst the condemned generation cannot be overstated. They neglected the circumcision of the children born to them then (<em><a href='B:60 5:5-6'>Jos 5:5-6</a></em>), thus showing their rejection of the Abrahamic covenant. There is good reason to believe that Romans 1 is a description of Israel in the wilderness; notice the past tenses there. <em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em> charges them with changing "the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like... to four-footed beasts, and creeping things", clearly alluding to <em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em> concerning how Israel in the wilderness "Changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass" by making the golden calf. The effective atheism of Romans 1 is matched by <em><a href='B:230 106:21'>Psa 106:21</a></em> "They forgat God their saviour". The long catalogue of Israel's wilderness sins in Psalms 106 is similar to that in Romans 1. "Full of envy" (<em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>) corresponds to them envying Moses (<em><a href='B:230 106:16'>Psa 106:16</a></em>), "whisperers" (<em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>) to "murmurers" (<em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>), and "inventors of evil things" (<em><a href='B:520 1:30'>Rom 1:30</a></em>) to God being angered with "their inventions" of false gods (<em><a href='B:230 106:29'>Psa 106:29</a></em>). Because of this "God gave them up" to continue in their sexual perversion and bitterness with each other even to the extent of murder (<em><a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>). A rabble of about 2 million people living in moral anarchy with little law and order, driven on in their lust by the knowledge that God had rejected them is surely a frightening thing to imagine. The emphasis on sexual sin in Romans 1 is paralleled by 1 Corinthians 10 stressing the frequent failure of Israel in the wilderness in this regard. Against such an evil and God forsaking background that young generation rebelled, to become one of the most faithful groups of Israelites in their history. As such they set a glorious example to the youth of today in rebelling against a world that mocks any form of true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves</em>- “Gave them up” is s:w. <em><a href='B:510 7:42'>Act 7:42</a></em>, where God turned from Israel because of their apostasy and “gave them up” to worship idols. Again, God works with His sinful people by propelling them in a downwards spiral. In this context He did this by giving them over to their own sexual lusts, which resulted in their dishonouring their own bodies. God can confirm people in their sexual lusting; and by implication, He can also hold people back. The perversions spoken of in v. 26 are all this come to its ultimate term- when people are made to feel that they were born to be perverted and abusive. Unbridled sexual lust leads to self-harm, a sin against self, in the sense that such behaviour is a dishonouring Gk:: shaming, despising of one’s own body. This suggests that the body naturally has honour- Paul is attacking the view that the body is evil and to be despised, that God is angry with human flesh as flesh. We take that glory and honour away from our bodies by sexual misbehaviour. Paul uses the Greek word for ‘dishonour’ only once more in Romans, in <em><a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a></em>, where he says that sin is a dishonouring&nbsp;<em>of God</em>. To dishonour ourselves, our own body, is to dishonour God. For we are made in His image and likeness. Lack of self-respect, an incorrect understanding and perception of who we are, is what so often leads us to sin.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:25'>Rom 1:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie</em>- These people once held God’s Truth, but exchanged it for a lie. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>, where we read that women changed / exchanged “the natural use into that which is against nature”. Sexual sin is a lie. The argument that we can sexually sin and it’s all going to be OK, is one of the greatest lies:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And worshiped and served the created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen</em>- The context of this verse, both before and after, speaks in a sexual context. The ‘created thing’ may refer to the human body- for worshipping the created thing is parallel with dishonouring the human body in v. 24. Praise and worship should be directed ultimately to God; sexual immorality seeks to break the connection between God and the human body, the awareness that the human being is made in the image of God. Treating people merely as bodies is to sever them in our minds from their connection to God. By perceiving their connection to God, we will never treat humans as merely bodies; nor will we perceive ourselves in that way either. The Creator is to be blessed by us for ever- and so we should start living like that now, rather than praising things He has created for what they are in themselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this cause God gave them up to vile passions</em>- “Vile” is s:w. ‘dishonour’, <em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>. The dishonouring of bodies by sexual perversion is a result of allowing ‘dishonourable’ lusts / thoughts to be worked out in practice; the performing of mental fantasy in the flesh. Paul teaches that God propels those who wish to give free reign to their fantasies- He gives them over to their own lusts. Paul is using the example of sexual perversion as part of a build up to a crescendo of demonstrating the depth of human depravity, and the subsequent depth of God’s grace. He demonstrates the seriousness of human sin by showing that God pushes people downwards in a downward spiral of lust, if this is what they themselves truly wish- and Paul cites sexual perversion as the parade example of this, whereby God so confirms sinners in their lusts that they even feel that what is truly “against nature” is in fact normal and natural.</p><p><em>Their women changed the natural use into that which is against</em>&nbsp;<em>nature-&nbsp;</em>These things are "against nature" (<em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>); it is therefore impossible that by 'nature' some people are born with perverted desires which they are free to indulge. "Nature" is used in Romans in the sense of "God’s creative order". It would be inappropriate and even cruel of God to create men with insatiable desires for perversion and then tell them that these are in fact not natural, and He holds them guilty for having them. "Nature" (Gk:&nbsp;<em>physis</em>) was used in contemporary Greek in the context of the God-designed, natural intention for heterosexual relationships; Strong suggests it refers to “natural production (lineal descent)”. <em>Physis</em>&nbsp;is rendered "by birth" in <em><a href='B:550 2:15'>Gal 2:15</a></em> RSV. The sexual pervert is behaving "against nature", against the way in which he was born. Sexual perverts are behaving "against nature", against God’s intended order at creation, and are thereby perverts of His way. The Greek&nbsp;<em>para</em>&nbsp;("against") means just that. Thus Paul's accusers complain that he "persuades men to worship God&nbsp;<em>contrary</em>&nbsp;(para) to the law" (<em><a href='B:510 18:13'>Act 18:13</a></em>); false teachers create divisions "<em>contrary</em>&nbsp;(para) to the doctrine which ye have learned" (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another-&nbsp;</em>Paul speaks of how sinful behaviour ends up in people doing things ‘contrary to nature’; and yet he uses a similar phrase to describe how being ‘grafted in’ to the true hope of Israel, with all it implies in practice, is likewise “contrary to nature” (<em><a href='B:520 1:26-27'>Rom 1:26-27</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 11:24'>Rom 11:24</a></em>). We walk against the wind, go against the grain, one way or the other in this life. And, cynically speaking, it may as well be for the Lord’s cause than for the flesh. See on <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>. The recompense refers not to AIDS but to God’s confirming of sexual perverts in their sin to the extent that they believe it is natural and somehow coded into their bodies.</p><p><em>Men with men working unseemliness and receiving in themselves that reward of their error which was due</em>- “Error” is s:w. deception. The sin associated with sexual perversion is therefore the result of deception. Earlier Paul has said that God has given over such people to their own lusts, to the point they believe that their sin is natural; here he says that they have been deceived. The deception is also by God, just as He sends “strong delusion” s:w. “error” upon those who don’t love the Truth, so that they believe a lie (<em><a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>.</p><p><em>And even as</em>- The context is the last clause of <em><a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a></em>, that sexual perversion is itself an appropriate punishment for the sin of sexual perversion. Paul here repeats that point- that God gave them over to that kind of “reprobate mind”. That God ‘gave them’ this mindset is laboured three times (<em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em>).</p><p><em>They refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not appropriate</em>- The same Greek words only in <em><a href='B:520 10:2'>Rom 10:2</a></em>, where Paul says that Israel do not hold or retain the knowledge of God. So here in <em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em> Paul seems to have his mind on Israel again, who didn’t any longer retain or hold God in their knowledge, and so their zeal became not according to knowledge (<em><a href='B:520 10:2'>Rom 10:2</a></em>). Of course the Jews would’ve insisted that they&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;mindful of God, they didn’t become atheists, far from it. But God wasn’t held in their knowledge, He wasn’t the defining reality in their thinking:&nbsp;<em>Retain</em>&nbsp;is the Greek word ‘echo’- our minds should be an echo of God’s.<br/>Even in this life, those who will be rejected have “a reprobate mind” (<em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em>)- they have the mind of the rejected, the unaccepted this is how the Greek word is used in every other occurrence in the NT. The mindset the rejected have in that awful day, is the mindset which they have now. This is how important our thinking is. Our thoughts, the thoughts of yesterday and today and tomorrow, will either accuse or excuse us in the last day, when God shall judge us according to our “secrets”, our inner thinking (<em><a href='B:520 2:15-16'>Rom 2:15-16</a></em>).</p><p>The context of Romans 1 is the power of the Gospel. Paul's discussion of sexual perversion is part of his demonstration that there is an antithesis to Gospel power; namely, the power of sin. He develops this theme later in chapters 7 and 8, where he shows that the compulsive, ever growing power of sin in the unbeliever or apostate is the antithesis of the power of the Spirit at work in the faithful believer. Chapters 1 and 2 introduce this theme, and Paul is citing sexual perversion as an example of the power of sin at work within men, as the antithesis to the power of the Gospel. He makes the same point in <em><a href='B:610 1:9-11'>1Ti 1:9-11</a></em>. Paul argues that the desire for sexual perversion is God’s punishment for men's sinful lusts. The point is being repeated at least three times, such is the emphasis:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>What men did</td><td>What God did</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thought they were wise</td><td>Made them fools</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Became vain in their imaginations"</td><td>Darkened their foolish heart (<em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Had evil "lusts of their own hearts"</td><td><em>Through</em>&nbsp;these lusts God gave them over to dishonouring their bodies between themselves</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Changed God’s truth (i:e. His word, <em><a href='B:500 17:17'>Joh 17:17</a></em>) into a lie</td><td>Gave them vile affections which resulted in them committing perverted sexual acts</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>They refused to acknowledge the claims of God (<em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em> AVmg:)</td><td>God gave them a mind "void of judgment" between right and wrong (<em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em> AVmg:), so that they committed perverted sexual acts</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Inappropriately lusted for each other</td><td>Gave them an appropriate punishment for their error, i:e. perverted sexual desire.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>It is clear from all this that God does something to the minds of men who justify perverted sexual lust; He makes them lust even more, and they therefore commit perverted sexual acts, and He then makes them want even more of such gratification. This is a classic example of the downward spiral an apostate believer enters; God pushes such people into ever increasing confirmation in their evil way. The fact some sexual perverts feel convinced they were born like it is an example of God confirming these people in their desires. It must be noted that the text of Romans 1 is largely concerned with attitudes of mind; people have wrong sexual lust in their minds, and God confirms this by giving them a perverted mindset. This shows that it is not enough to simply abstain from perverted sexual acts; the perverted sexual mindset is in itself sinful. "The lusts of their own hearts" is paralleled with "to dishonour their own bodies"; "vile affections" with sexual&nbsp;<em>acts</em>; "a reprobate mind" with&nbsp;<em>doing&nbsp;</em>those things which are abhorrent. For this reason alone it is impossible to accept the reasoning of Romans 1 and also believe that some people are created by God constitutionally perverted, with these "vile affections" as part of their natural fabric. It has been pointed out by many commentators that Paul in Romans 1 is alluding to passages in the Wisdom of Solomon; and those passages are saying that God confirms men in the unrighteous desires they have chosen to follow. God often punishes men by turning them over to their sin completely. For example: "In return for their foolish and wicked thoughts which led them astray to worship irrational animals... thou didst send upon them a multitude of irrational creatures, that they might learn that one is punished by the very things in which he sins... therefore those who lived unrighteously thou didst torment through their own abominations" (<em>Wis_11:15-16</em>; <em>Wis_12:23</em>). <em><a href='B:520 1:29-31'>Rom 1:29-31</a></em> associates sexual perversion with a descending spiral of all sorts of other sins: envy, murder, inventors of evil things etc. This confirms that sexual perversion is part of a general picture of sinfulness which is in opposition to the system of righteousness developed by the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Being filled</em>- by God.</p><p><em>With all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity</em>- One can only be filled with murder if we understand murder here as an attitude of mind, in the sense of <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em> - hating our brother is murder. The context is speaking of how God is doing things to the&nbsp;<em>mind</em>, the mental attitude, of sinners.</p><p>The extent of spiritual despair, despondency and apostasy amongst the condemned generation cannot be overstated. They neglected the circumcision of their children (<em><a href='B:60 5:5-6'>Jos 5:5-6</a></em>), showing their rejection of the Abrahamic covenant with them. There is good reason to think that Romans 1 is a description of Israel in the wilderness. <em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em> accuses them of changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to... four-footed beasts, and creeping things", clearly alluding to <em><a href='B:230 106:29'>Psa 106:29</a></em> concerning how Israel in the wilderness "changed their glory (i:e. God) into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass" by making the golden calf. The effective atheism of Romans 1 is matched by <em><a href='B:230 106:21'>Psa 106:21</a></em>: "They forgat God their saviour". The long catalogue of Israel's wilderness sins in Psalms 106 is similar to that in&nbsp;Romans 1. "Full of envy" (<em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>) corresponds to them envying Moses (<em><a href='B:230 106:16'>Psa 106:16</a></em>), "whisperers" (<em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>) to "murmurers" (<em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>), "inventors of evil things" (<em><a href='B:520 1:30'>Rom 1:30</a></em>) to God being angered with "their inventions" of false gods (<em><a href='B:230 106:29'>Psa 106:29</a></em>). Because of this "God gave them up" to continue in their sexual perversion and bitterness with each other, even to the extent of murder (<em><a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:29'>Rom 1:29</a></em>). They were a rabble of about 2 million people living in moral anarchy, driven on in their lust by the knowledge that God had rejected them. The children of that generation who later turned out faithful- indeed the generation that settled Canaan were perhaps the most faithful generation in Israel’s history- must have had to violently rebel against the attitude of the world and older generation around them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:30'>Rom 1:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, proud, boastful, inventors of evil things</em>- the mind is creative, inventive, and must be channelled positively rather than towards the invention or creation of sinful things. Note that the origin or creation of evil in the sense of sin is within the human being, not in some cosmic Satan figure.</p><p><em>Disobedient to parents</em>- this may appear a lesser sin compared to those which surround it. But Paul several times does this- listing what some would consider an apparently minor sin within a list of what some would consider major sins- to demonstrate that the apparently minor sin is indeed that serious.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:31'>Rom 1:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Without understanding</em>- This&nbsp;translates the Greek&nbsp;<em>asunetos</em>; “covenant breakers” translates&nbsp;<em>asunthetos</em>. The alliteration between the words is common in the Bible, and suggests that the Bible was recorded in such a way that it could be easily memorized by the initial hearers- for the majority of believers over history have been illiterate:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Covenant breakers-&nbsp;</em>“Covenant breakers” and “without natural affection” may be understandable in a moral, sexual context. For in <em><a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a></em> Paul has written of sexual perversion as a leaving of the natural intent of the body:&nbsp;</p><p><em>With natural affection, unmerciful-&nbsp;</em>“Implacable”, Gk. ‘without accepting a libation’ suggests that unforgiveness, or being “unmerciful”, is as bad as all manner of major sexual sin listed in the same list. Yet so often those sins remain unforgiven by those who consider themselves more spiritual than those who fail in such areas; yet such unforgiveness is of the same category as the grossest moral failure. Gk. ‘without an offering’, i:e. unwilling to accept a sacrifice in order to grant peace. This is a clear allusion to what God does for us; indeed most of the terms in v:31 are the very opposite of what God does in the atonement. His reconciliation of us must be the basis for our lives and mental attitudes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who, knowing the ordinance of God</em>- the relevance of this verse is to those who know God’s judgments, those who are responsible to Him. Those described in <em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em> know the judgment of God; they know it will come. But they have a mind “void of an awareness of judgment” (<em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em> AVmg:). We can know, know it all. But live with a mind and heart void of it. <em><a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a></em> AVmg. uses the same word to describe those who “profess that they know God” but are “void of judgment”. We can know Him, but have no real personal sense of judgment to come. These are sobering thoughts.</p><p><em>That they that practice</em>- Gk. keep on practicing, in an ongoing way.</p><p><em>Such things are worthy of death</em>- Some of the “things” listed in the preceding verses might appear to some to be minor sins. But they are “worthy of death” if we live in them. We need to think through that list in <em><a href='B:520 1:29-31'>Rom 1:29-31</a></em>. Disobedience to parents, lacking “natural affection”, not being faithful to a covenant, implacable, not showing mercy- any one of those “things” if lived in as a way of life is “worthy of death”. Refusing to fellowship one’s brethren, refusing to forgive, ignoring elderly parents... is “worthy of death”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Not only do the same, but also give approval to them that practise them- “</em>Give approval to” is Gk. ‘to assent to’, ‘to feel gratified with’. We can so easily ‘feel gratified with’ those who commit those sins through vicariously participating in them through watching and reading of them, and psychologically feeling gratified by the sin. Paul seems to be speaking here directly to the online entertainment generation... Paul may have written this with his memory upon how when Stephen had been stoned, he had stood there looking on and “consenting” with the murder, stone by stone- without throwing a single stone himself (s:w. twice, <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:20'>Act 22:20</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Paul warned the Romans that those who “have pleasure” in (Gk. ‘to feel gratified with’) sinful people will be punished just as much as those who commit the sins (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>). But he uses the very word used for his own ‘consenting’ unto the death of Stephen; standing there in consent, although not throwing a stone (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:20'>Act 22:20</a></em>). He realized that only by grace had that major sin of his been forgiven; and in that spirit of humility and self-perception of himself, as a serious sinner saved by grace alone, did he appeal to his brethren to consider their ways. &nbsp;‘Feeling gratified with’ such sins as are in this list is what the entertainment industry is so full of. We can’t watch, read and listen to this kind of thing by choice without in some sense being vicariously involved in it- and this seems to be exactly what Paul has in mind when he warns that those who feel gratified in those sins shall share in their judgment. This is a sober warning, relevant, powerful and cutting to our generation far more than any other. For given the internet and media, we can so easily feel gratified in others’ sins:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul reels off an awful list of sins in Romans 1, and builds up to a crescendo at the end of the passage. We're left waiting, with dropped jaws, for him to come out with some yet more awful sin. And Paul fulfils that expectation by listing the sin of having pleasure in those who commit sin (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>). Immediately we who are not grossly perverted and immoral are shaken from our seats. For in our generation like no other, one can secretly view sin, in movies, novels and on the internet, and vicariously get involved with it whilst not 'doing it' with our own bodies. This sin really is serious. It tops and caps and concludes the list of awful sins. And yet the whole section goes on to talk about the danger of condemning others for such sins (<em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>). It could be that Paul is suggesting that by condemning others, eagerly exploring their sins in order to pass condemnation upon them, we are thereby gratifying ourselves through vicarious involvement in those very sins. In this case, the psychology presented would’ve been 2000 years ahead of its time.<br/>Those described in <em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em> know the judgment of God; they know it will come. But they have a mind “void of an awareness of judgment” (<em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em> AVmg:). We can know, know it all. But live with a mind and heart void of it. <em><a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a></em> AVmg. uses the same word to describe those who “profess that they know God” but are “void of judgment”. We can know Him, but have no real personal sense of judgment to come. These are sobering thoughts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore you are without excuse</em>- s:w. only in <em><a href='B:520 1:20'>Rom 1:20</a></em>, where sexual perverts are described as “without excuse”, inexcusable. The whole point is that those who are judgmental, in the sense of condemning ahead of time, are in the same category. The point is very powerful and telling. Perhaps Paul purposefully talks about sexual perversion in Romans 1 because he knows it will shock and encourage his readers to condemn sexual perverts etc:, and thus he has set them up for ‘condemnation’. Remember that Paul isn’t merely playing mind games with his readership- he’s building us up to a crescendo of conviction of sinfulness, which will form the backdrop for the good news of God’s amazing grace; and this, rather than ranting about sin for the sake of it, is the theme of Romans. “Inexcusable” is a Greek legal term, without defence / legal answer to make. As if whenever we judge others, we are ourselves standing condemned and speechless at the judgment seat of God. The rejected in the last day will be speechless, without any legal answer to make (<em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>). If we judge others, then we right now are condemning ourselves, speechless and ashamed before the Divine judgment seat. In this sense “wherein”, or insofar as, we judge others- we condemn ourselves. We “do the same things”, not literally, but insofar as by being judgmental or unmerciful (the context is <em><a href='B:520 1:31'>Rom 1:31</a></em>), we are sinning in the same category of mortal sins which they are; for judgmentalism is as bad as the list of major moral failures Paul has been listing at the end of Romans 1.</p><p><em>O man, whoever you are that judge</em>- Paul is writing with at least some reference to himself personally. To be judgmental and feel spiritually superior to others would’ve been frequent temptations for him. Paul often writes assuming his readers’ response being in a certain way. Here he assumes that having read his talk of sexual perverts and a whole catena of other sins in <em><a href='B:520 1:29-31'>Rom 1:29-31</a></em>, that we will be shaking our heads and judging those sins. But here in <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em> he plays on that expected response from us “Therefore..." is without referent unless it is to our assumed response to <em><a href='B:520 1:29-31'>Rom 1:29-31</a></em> and basically says: “Thou art the man”. He confidently asserts that we who judge in the sense of condemn are doing the same things. He may mean that we all at times commit the sins of <em><a href='B:520 1:29-31'>Rom 1:29-31</a></em> and so are guilty. Or he may be saying that the very act of judging / condemning others is as bad as ‘doing those same things’. We must of course ‘judge’ in the sense of having an opinion; but to condemn people in the way that only God can is just as bad as sexual perversion or whatever other sin in <em><a href='B:520 1:27-31'>Rom 1:27-31</a></em> we may wish to condemn.</p><p><em>For wherein you judge another</em>- the implication could be that if you condemn a person for a sin in the sense of prejudging God’s personal condemnation of them, then you are counted as having performed the very sin which you so despise and condemn:&nbsp;</p><p><em><br/>You condemn yourself For you that judge practise the same things</em>- By condemning others we are as it were playing judge, and whilst at it, we’re reading out our own sentence of condemnation. The practical result of all this must be faced- there will, presumably, be some otherwise good living, upright Christian folk who come to the day of judgment and are condemned to darkness and gnashing of teeth simply because they in their brief lifetimes condemned some of the other sinners who are with them thrown out into condemnation. It may appear bizarre- hardened sinners like lifetime perverts are there on the left hand side of the judgment seat along with the upright, righteous pillars of church life who never smoked, got drunk, had a telly or broke the speed limit. But they condemned their sinful brethren, those with whom they share condemnation. And that’s why they are there. This reality needs far more than some passing grunt of approval or sober nod of the head from us as we consider it. All this is not to say that we in this life can’t tell right from wrong- that’s the point of v. 2. We are indeed sure of what the judgment of God is about these gross sins, but we are sure of what&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;judgment is- and that, surely, is where the emphasis should be: “the judgment&nbsp;<em>of God</em>”.</p><p>We&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;right now the principles on which God will judge us. We can judge what is acceptable to the Lord (<em><a href='B:560 5:10'>Eph 5:10</a></em> -&nbsp; judgment day language). We can judge / discern those things which are excellent in His eyes (<em><a href='B:570 1:10'>Phi 1:10</a></em>). We are&nbsp;<em>sure&nbsp;</em>of what the judgment of God is going to be against persistent sinners (<em><a href='B:520 2:2'>Rom 2:2</a></em>); and yet if we condemn them, we can be equally sure that even now we are condemned of ourselves, seeing that if we condemn, we will be likewise (<em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>). The wrath of God is right now revealed, constantly disclosed, against sin (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>).<br/>It is difficult to read <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em> without seeing an allusion to David’s condemnation of the man who killed his neighbour's only sheep: "Thou art inexcusable, O man,&nbsp;<em>whosoever thou art</em>&nbsp;that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself”. Surely Paul is saying that David’s massive self-deception and hypocrisy over Bathsheba can all too easily be replicated in our experience:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:2'>Rom 2:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those that practise such things</em>- Again, it is only the believer, the person who knows God’s word, who is aware and certain of the judgment of God. We can be certain that judgmentalism, lack of mercy and all the moral sins in the list at the end of Romans 1 will all lead to condemnation; yet we still do them, especially the sin of condemning others. This is the paradox Paul is bringing out- that we can be sure, intellectually and spiritually persuaded, that sin including judging and being unmerciful to others will result in condemnation- but this doesn’t seem to mean we stop doing them. This is all part of Paul’s build up to the crescendo of conviction of human sinfulness which so urgently necessitates our acceptance of God’s grace.</p><p>“Practice” is Gk. ‘to practice continually’, rather than occasional failure. “Judgment... against them” is language of the law court, whereby a judgment the contents of the judgment, rather than the act of judgment; a noun rather than a verb is read out&nbsp;<em>against</em>&nbsp;a person. The oft made distinction between the person and the sin doesn’t seem Biblical- God’s judgment is against persons, not abstractions. It is individuals and not concepts which come before God’s judgment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:3'>Rom 2:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And do you think (O man who judges those that practise such things</em>- There is the strong sense in human nature that ‘this won’t happen to me, yes it will happen to most people who do that, but not to me’. This aspect of our nature is at its most acute when it comes to committing sin. Others will die, for sure, truly, definitely, for doing those things (<em><a href='B:520 2:2'>Rom 2:2</a></em>)- but I will not. No wonder the sin within us is at times described as ‘the devil’, a liar, a deceiver. Yet this whole process of thought is described here as a ‘reckoning’ AV “thinkest…?”, a process of discussion with ourselves. But it all takes place deep in the subconscious; for we don’t literally have this kind of conversation with ourselves. We see here how the Bible tackles sin at its root- deep in the heart, within the subconscious thought processes, rather than blaming some supernatural cosmic dragon. Such an explanation is utterly primitive and has no praxis, compared to the Biblical definition of sin and the devil.<br/><em>And yet you do the same)-</em>&nbsp;I suggested under <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em> that this may refer to&nbsp;<em>effectively</em>&nbsp;doing the same, by condemning the individuals.</p><p><em>That you shall escape the judgment of God?</em>- Gk. ‘to flee’. The rejected will ultimately flee from God’s presence at judgment day. Paul appears to be playing on that idea- they think they can run away from it, and in the end they shall run from it in condemnation. All the same, apart from this word play, Paul is highlighting the basic human tendency to think that ‘It won’t happen&nbsp;<em>to me</em>. I can do the same as&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;do, they may suffer the consequences of it, but in my case, I will not’. Paul is addressing himself to our deepest psyche and internal thought processes: “Do you think&nbsp;<em>logizomai</em>, to reason out this within yourself, O man... ?”. This sense that ‘I in&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;case can get away with it and not pay the price’ is especially pronounced in spiritual matters; the idea is that we can sin and not die because of it. The psychology of criminal behaviour has emphasized this facet of the human mind, but in fact we all have it.<br/>The rejected going away into... (<em><a href='B:470 25:46'>Mat 25:46</a></em>) is only a reflection of the position they themselves adopted in their lives. They thought that they could flee away from the judgments of God (<em><a href='B:520 2:3'>Rom 2:3</a></em> Gk:)- and so they will flee from His judgment seat, although so unwillingly.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or do you despise the riches of his goodness</em>- We can despise God’s grace if we condemn others; for who are we to say that God in the end will not save the sinners of <em><a href='B:520 1:26-31'>Rom 1:26-31</a></em>? By condemning others which is the burden of <em><a href='B:520 2:1-3'>Rom 2:1-3</a></em> we are despising God’s grace, limiting it, counting it as not very powerful nor wonderful. And by condemning others we fail to realize that God’s limitless grace and goodness- the very grace we wish to limit by condemning others- is in fact leading us personally to repentance from the sins which will in their turn condemn us too.</p><p><em>And forbearance</em>- Gk. self-restraint. God restrains Himself by His grace. Not condemning us is a struggle for Him, and we despise that characteristic of His, ignore and downplay His marvellous internal struggle, if we simply write people off as ‘condemned’.</p><p><em>And longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you</em>- Gk. ‘is leading you’, continuous present- all the while we are despising His grace, thinking others can’t possibly be saved by it, He by grace is trying to patiently lead us to repentance. The only other time in Romans the word is used is in <em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em>, where we learn that all the children of God are “led by the spirit of God” just as God leads, same word, His children unto glory, <em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>. This leading is therefore specifically to repentance, to actual concrete change in our lives in specific areas, not just a general sense that we are ‘led on the journey of life’. It’s amazing that God tries to lead even the self-righteous, proud and judgmental of others to repentance. In <em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em> we read that all God’s true children are led of the Spirit. Here in <em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em> it is the goodness, the kindness, the grace of God which leads us- to the end point of repentance. We are being led somewhere- to change, not just led on some road to Wigan Pier, to nowhere, led for the sake of being led… a journey for the sake of a journey. It’s common to speak of ‘being on a journey’, but the question is, are we arriving anywhere, are we coming to radical change,&nbsp;<em>metanoia</em>, or not?</p><p><em>To repentance</em>- from being judgmental? For that is the context of <em><a href='B:520 2:1-3'>Rom 2:1-3</a></em>:&nbsp;<br/>The context of Paul’s challenge about whether we despise God’s rich grace is his plea for us not to be judgmental and unmerciful. If we consider our brethren condemned by God and refuse to show them mercy and sympathy, then we are despising God’s goodness; we’re saying that all the riches of His grace aren’t enough to save that person. Thus our condemning of others is effectively a limiting and despising of God’s saving grace. All the time we are despising God’s grace like this, God’s grace is leading continuous present tense&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;to repentance of the sins which shall condemn&nbsp;<em>us</em>. The implication is that focusing upon judging others results in little attention to one’s own need for repentance. This would explain why those so publicly judgmental of others are so often exposed in due course as having hypocritically harboured some secret vice or moral failure in their own lives. Psychologically, this situation develops because their focus is so upon the failures of others that they perceive “sin” to be something purely external to themselves:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul summarises his argument of Romans chapters 1 and 2 by saying that there he has accused / charged (in a legal sense) all men and women, Jews and Gentiles, of being “under judgment for sin” (<em><a href='B:520 3:9'>Rom 3:9</a></em> Gk:). With typically devastating logic, he has demonstrated the universal guilt of man. Twice he stresses that whoever we are, we are without excuse (<em><a href='B:520 1:20'>Rom 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>). All men have a conscience which is dynamically equivalent to the specific knowledge of God’s law; in this sense they are a “law unto themselves” (<em><a href='B:520 2:14'>Rom 2:14</a></em> - although this phrase is used in a different sense in modern English). “By nature” (Strong: ‘native disposition, constitution’) they have the same moral sense that God’s law teaches. This is why human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong- it’s why, e.g., there is protest at ethnic cleansing. God is understood / perceived by what He has created, namely our own bodies. But through, e.g., sexual perversion, man has distorted the image and glory of God which he was intended to be, and has worshipped the created body rather than the creator (<em><a href='B:520 1:20-23'>Rom 1:20-23</a></em>). Fashion, adverts and power clothing all do this, as well as the present obsession with sexual expression. The Lord Himself taught that because we are in the image of God, therein lies an imperative to give our bodies to Him. The goodness of God can lead&nbsp;<em>all men</em>&nbsp;to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). God has set a sense of the eternal in the human heart (<em><a href='B:250 3:11'>Ecc 3:11</a></em> AVmg:). An awareness of judgment is alive as a basic instinct in people. God is “not far from every one of us…forasmuch as we are all the offspring of God” (<em><a href='B:510 17:27-29'>Act 17:27-29</a></em> - stated in a preaching context), being created in His image.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But after your hardness</em>- Judging / condemning others is because of hardness of heart:&nbsp;<em>Hardness</em>&nbsp;implies that the mortal sin being spoken about is a hardness of heart, a condemning of others (<em><a href='B:520 2:1-3'>Rom 2:1-3</a></em>). Later in Romans, Paul associates hardness of heart with Pharaoh, who was in turn hardened by God in response to his own hardness.</p><p><em>And impenitent heart</em>- Continuing impenitently condemning others’ impenitence is what will lead to our condemnation; for so long as we continue condemning, we are treasuring up condemnation to ourselves. The paradox is huge and crucially relevant. The wrath and indignation for which these people are condemned (<em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>) is surely wrath and indignation against those whom they condemn, claiming to have the “wrath” of Divine condemnation against others, a wrath which only properly belongs to Him. God is leading people to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>), but some remain impenitent. In this they fight against God. He leads people by His grace to repent of their judgmentalism and condemnation of others, but not all accept His leading.<br/><em>You treasure up for yourself anger</em>- Every continuance in condemning others and being unmerciful is a treasuring up of condemnation in the last day, adding to it bit by bit. Each act of condemnation, each incident of rejecting others, is as it were heaping up a piece of condemnation for ourselves in the last day. Our life is a laying up of treasure against the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 6:19-20'>Mat 6:19-20</a></em>). The Greek&nbsp;<em>orge</em>&nbsp;translated “wrath” is elsewhere translated ‘anger’, ‘indignation’. These are exactly the feelings of those who condemn others- anger and indignation. There is therefore a direct, proportionate correspondence between human condemnation, anger and indignation against the weakness of their brethren; and the anger, indignation and condemnation of God against those who condemn in this way:&nbsp;</p><p><em>In the day of anger</em>- your wrath with others now (<em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>) is going to be related to God’s wrath against you at the last day. Again the implication is that it is because people have shown wrath, i:e. Divine condemnation, that they will suffer wrath in the day of wrath which is to come. The point is that the day of judgment is the day of God’s wrath, not ours; and the day for wrath is then, and not now. It will be “revealed” only then- not now. The emphasis is upon the judgment and wrath being “of&nbsp;<em>God</em>”, then- and not of man, nor now in this life.</p><p><em>And revelation of the righteous judgment of God</em>- the Greek means ‘the verdict’, the judgment given. This will not be decided upon at the last day- it has already been created in this life, and we have created it ourselves- for we are our own judges. What happens at the last day is that it is revealed. The day of judgment is a metaphor- a human court sits down to assess evidence and pass a verdict. This isn’t the case with Divine judgment, as God knows the end from the beginning, and isn’t passive nor unaware of human behaviour and the reasons for it- all at the very time it occurs.<br/>There are several allusions to Job in Romans, all of which confirm that Job is set up as symbolic of apostate Israel. A simple example is Elihu's description of Job as a hypocrite heaping up wrath (<em><a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a></em>), which connects with Paul's description of the Jews as treasuring up unto themselves "wrath against&nbsp;the day of wrath" (<em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who will render&nbsp;to every man according to his works</em>- The emphasis is perhaps on “will”, for Paul is addressing the subconscious mentality that we ourselves can escape judgment (see on <em><a href='B:520 2:3'>Rom 2:3</a></em>). “Render” is the same word translated “to give account”- we shall “give account” at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:17'>Heb 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:5'>1Pe 4:5</a></em>), “render” s:w. to God the fruits of our lives (<em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>). So God’s rendering of account to us is really our rendering of account to Him- we are our own judges, we are working out the verdict now by our attitudes and actions. “Render” is ‘to give account’. It would seem that in some sense, there will be a ‘going through’ of all our deeds, and an account given by God related to each of them. How this shall happen is unclear&nbsp;(e.g. through the past flooding before our eyes like a movie, which is frequently stopped for us to comment upon). But in some sense it will happen, in that not one human deed performed or thought by those responsible to Divine judgment will as it were slip away unnoticed. This isn’t only sobering, but also comforting:&nbsp;It is God who will render to each person their account- therefore we should not sit as judges (the context of <em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>).</p><p>The judgement of works must be squared against the fact that we each receive a penny a day, salvation by grace. Our salvation itself is by grace, but the nature of our eternity, how many cities we rule over, how brightly we shine as stars, will be appropriate to our deeds in this life. Or it may be that in the context here, the “deeds” which will be judged are our condemnation of others. This, as explained in <em><a href='B:520 2:1-3'>Rom 2:1-3</a></em>, is as bad as the “deeds” being condemned by us; and so there’s a telling appropriacy in styling such condemnations “deeds”, as if they are the actual deed performed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:7'>Rom 2:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To them that by patience in welldoing</em>- s:w. “deeds” in <em><a href='B:520 2:6'>Rom 2:6</a></em>. Yet how can the right deeds be rewarded with eternal life, given Paul’s teaching about salvation by grace rather than works? Surely the answer is in the fact that salvation itself is by grace, the “penny a day” of the parable which all believers will receive; but our works aren’t insignificant, and they will be judged and will affect the nature of the eternal life, the salvation, which by grace we shall be given. Or it could be that the “well doing”, the ‘good deeds’, spoken of here are in fact a non-judgmental, merciful life. The good deeds are what we avoided doing, i:e. condemning others, which is the theme of this section of Romans:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Seek for glory and honour and incorruption</em>- Or “immortality”. To those who earnestly seek for perfection, who would so love to be given moral perfection, who would so love never to sin again- they will be given eternal life in that state. Note the difference between the “immortality” which we seek, and the “eternal life” which we are given in response. The Greek for “immortality” is also translated “incorruption”, “sincerity”- it has a distinct moral sense to it. If we seek to live in moral incorruption, if our desire to be in the Kingdom of God is because we so yearn to live without sin and corruption- then we will not only be given that but also an eternity of life like that. But the essence is to seek to live in moral incorruption- and then the eternity will come as a natural part of that.</p><p>“Glory and honour” are terms frequently applied by Paul to the Lord Jesus. The righteous seek&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;glory and honour, and shall be given eternal life in which to do so. Or should we seek glory, honour- for others? For love doesn’t seek her own things (<em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em> s:w:). Paul could write of how he ‘sought’ others’ salvation (<em><a href='B:540 12:14'>2Co 12:14</a></em>). Paul tells the Hebrews if he indeed was the author and Romans to have the patient, fruit-bearing characteristics of the good ground (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 2:7'>Rom 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:36'>Heb 10:36</a></em>). The whole section in Rom. 2:7-10 is alluding to the LXX descriptions of the blessings and cursings for obedience or disobedience to the covenant in Dt. 27-30. But they are allusions, and the idea is that under the new covenant, those who e.g. condemn others (:1), or are factious (:8) or unmerciful (Rom. 1:31) are equivalent to those who broke the old covenant. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But to them that are factious</em>- The section is talking about those who condemn others (<em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>) and who are unmerciful (<em><a href='B:520 1:31'>Rom 1:31</a></em>). It is this which creates faction-for if one person condemns another, they expect others to condemn them too, and cause faction over it. It’s significant that causing faction by being judgmental is chosen here as the epitome of wrong doing- despite Paul having spoken of sins such as sexual perversion in the context. His argument seems to be that condemning those who commit such sins and causing faction over the matter is in fact a far worse sin. To be contentious – to be divisive, endlessly creating strife (Gk:), is the very epitome of those who will not be saved. Yet sadly, contention against other believers is falsely painted as ‘spiritual strength’. This category of people are later in this verse called indignant and angry- confirming the view that this group are people within the ecclesia who are angry, indignant and contentious against others whom they judge (<em><a href='B:520 2:1-3'>Rom 2:1-3</a></em> sets the context).<br/><em>Do not obey the truth</em>- As we have shown in comments on <em><a href='B:520 2:2'>Rom 2:2</a></em> that Paul has in view here those who know the Truth. The emphasis should therefore here be placed upon their disobedience to the Truth which they know. And that Truth requires mercy, grace and non-condemnation to be shown to sinners. That is obedience to the Truth. Or “the truth” may be a reference to the Law of Moses, as in <em><a href='B:520 2:20'>Rom 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>? Or to the Gospel, as elsewhere in Paul's thought.<br/><em>And do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, anger and indignation</em>- Paul introduces the paradox he develops so strongly in chapter 6- that we are slaves, and we obey either the flesh or the spirit. For all our fiercely claimed independence, we are presented by Paul as slaves with only two possible masters to whom we can yield obedience. What's telling in the figure is that the 'master' of the flesh is actually our own internal passions of wrath, indignation, unrighteousness. "Obey" is from a Greek word which really means to persuade. We are persuaded either by our own anger, or by the Truth of the Gospel. The same word recurs in <em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em>.</p><p>As commented on under <em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>, it is those who condemn others who do so with indignation and wrath, thus heaping upon themselves Divine wrath and indignation at the last day. We all have latent wrath and indignation within us- but we are not to obey those passions in a wrong way. When we encounter the sinfulness of others, it seems that indignation and wrath are aroused and this leads some to condemn others. But if we obey those passions- we shall receive God’s wrath and condemnation.<br/>The rejected will want to be accepted. "When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you (quoted in <em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em> re. the judgment). Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me" (<em><a href='B:240 1:27-28'>Pro 1:27-28</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a></em>.<br/><em>Tribulation</em>- We have the choice of tribulation now for the sake of living the truly Christian life (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>), or tribulation at the hands of God and His Son and their Angels at the last day:&nbsp;<em>Tribulation&nbsp;</em>wasexactly what the apostate Christians were trying to avoid will come upon them at judgment day. The 'persecution' or 'chasing' is perhaps a reference to the Angel of the Lord chasing the rejected like chaff away from the judgment seat- the Angel will "persecute" the rejected along dark and slippery paths (<em><a href='B:230 35:6'>Psa 35:6</a></em>).</p><p><em>And anguish-</em>&nbsp;lit. 'narrowness of room'. They will have no place to run, compared to the sense of largeness and freedom which will be and is with God’s accepted people. The anguish will not just be upon 'men' but upon every individual&nbsp;<em>psuche</em>&nbsp;(s:w. heart, life, mind) of man who has been disobedient. The suggestion is that the punishment will be psychological, a mental trauma.</p><p><em>Upon every soul of man that works evil-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em> has warned that those who don't so much do the evil but vicariously agree with it are just as culpable. The 'doing' is therefore as much mental as physical.</p><p><em>Of the Jew first and also of the Greek</em>- Because the Jews have or had greater responsibility to Divine judgment?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:10'>Rom 2:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But glory and honour and peace to every man that works good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek</em>- The Greek word for “honour” really refers to money, a financial price. There could be an allusion to the parable of the talents, whereby the faithful receives the one talent which the unfaithful hadn't used (<em><a href='B:470 25:28'>Mat 25:28</a></em>). The 'working good' in the context of <em><a href='B:520 2:1-3'>Rom 2:1-3</a></em> is not condemning our brother.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:11'>Rom 2:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For there is no respect of persons with God</em>- i:e. both Jew and Gentile will be accepted in God’s Kingdom. The spirituality of the Gentile believers will be rewarded just as much as that of Jewish believers. That the Jew-Gentile equality is such a theme in Romans would suggest that the ecclesia featured both Jews and Gentiles- hence Paul's many OT allusions in Romans, whilst at the same time making it clear in places that he is specifically addressing Gentiles "ye Gentiles".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:12'>Rom 2:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as many as have sinned outside of law shall also perish without the law; and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law</em>- i:e. in condemnation at the last day? For this is how the word is used in <em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:12'>2Th 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>:&nbsp;“Judged” is being used in the sense of "condemned". Not only those who knew the Mosaic law will appear at judgment day; some will be condemned there because of their disobedience to that law, but others will be condemned because of disobedience to other principles.<br/>Watch out for the use of figures of speech. How we interpret the Bible accurately depends upon grasping these. Ellipsis and metaphor are the most common. Ellipsis is where as it were a gap is left in the sentence, and we have to fill in the intended sense. Thus: "For as many as have sinned without law, shall perish also without&nbsp;<em>being judged by</em>&nbsp;law" (<em><a href='B:520 2:12'>Rom 2:12</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For not the hearers of the law are just before God</em>- there would have been a great tendency in the first century as in our own to think that regular attendance at a place of worship and simply hearing God’s law read was enough for salvation.</p><p><em>But the doers of the law shall be justified</em>- Yet Paul elsewhere teaches that no works can bring about justification, it is not of works but of faith in God’s grace. I've observed several times in these notes so far in Romans that Paul tends to use the idea of 'doing' with reference to mental attitudes rather than deeds. Or it may be that Paul is here quoting a rabbinic maxim, and agreeing with it only so far- to demonstrate that even passive religionists are all the same liable to a very real condemnation.<br/><em><a href='B:470 7:21'>Mat 7:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 2:13'>Rom 2:13</a></em>. Paul saw the "Lord, Lord" people of the parable as the Jews of the first century who initially responded enthusiastically to the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:14'>Rom 2:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For when Gentiles that do not have the law</em>- Gentile believers in Christ. There's no article- it's not a reference to&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;Gentiles as a whole.</p><p><em>Do by nature the things of the law, these not having the law, are the law to themselves</em>- Nobody seems to be naturally obedient to "the things contained in the law", rather is obedience and spirituality an hourly struggle. It's therefore tempting to seek to interpret this verse in the light of the immediate context- which is condemning some Jewish? members of the Rome ecclesia for doing that which is "against nature", i:e. sexual perversion (<em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>). The Gentile believers&nbsp;<em>in that context of sexual perversion</em>&nbsp;were "by nature" doing God’s will in that area. Again, we see Paul teaching that nobody is 'born perverted', such behaviour is not natural. Perhaps it is in this context that we can understand the rest of <em><a href='B:520 2:14'>Rom 2:14</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 2:15'>Rom 2:15</a></em>, which seem to suggest that conscience naturally rebels against such things. This is indeed the natural reaction to such perversion.</p><p>It’s easy to get discouraged in our preaching by the apparent lack of response. But all the witnesses that we make, the points we get across, the bills we distribute, adverts we place… the people who receive them&nbsp;<em>don’t</em>&nbsp;treat them as they would say a commercial advertisement.<em>&nbsp;Everyone out there has a religious conscience</em>- let’s remember that. They know, deep down, what they ought to be doing. And our preaching invites them to do it. If there is no immediate conversion, well don’t worry:&nbsp;<em>You have touched peoples’ hearts</em>&nbsp;by your witness. Paul describes our witness in terms of the burning of aromatic spices during the triumphant procession of a victorious general, in our case, the Lord Jesus. His victory train goes on and on and on; and each generation of preachers is the aroma. But in Paul’s image, the aroma strikes the bystanders in only one of two ways: some find it pleasing and life-giving, whereas others find it nauseating and deadly (<em><a href='B:540 2:14-16'>2Co 2:14-16</a></em>). The point is, the fragrance of our witness penetrates&nbsp;<em>everywhere</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:540 2:14'>2Co 2:14</a></em>), and it is an odour which&nbsp;<em>cannot be ignored</em>. It is either repulsive, or life-giving. Our hearers will react in only one of those two ways, whatever their apparent indifference to us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:15'>Rom 2:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith</em>- Along with the witness of God’s law, their conscience also happened to agree with God’s law about sexual perversion. <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> warns that our conscience isn't so reliable as to justify us at the last day; but in the 'natural' revulsion of the conscience against sexual perversion, conscience is a joint witness with God’s law. The reference is to the new covenant as described in Jer. 31:33; also alluded to in :21. The argument seems to be that the Gentile Christians are indeed under the new covenant, so there is no need to worry as to whether they are keeping the old covenant. The idea of the new covenant was that God was so thirsting for relationship with His disobedient people that He would actually write the essence of His law in their hearts. This idea of internalizing the spirit of the law was actually mentioned within the law itself, in Dt. 30:11-14: "this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off... the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it". This shows that the purpose of the law of Moses was not simply to set up Israel for failure by giving them a set of laws which were impossible to keep. The law was perfect, just and good. Obedience to it would have led to the character seen in the Lord Jesus, who was perfectly obedient to it. And so the new covenant involves God putting His Spirit, the spirit of Christ, into human hearts, now that the old covenant has been abrogated. He writes that spirit there, as He wrote the commandments on rock. But that cannot happen if we are hard hearted and impenitent (:5). Repentance and soft heartedness towards God are therefore required for entry to the new covenant. And that is in short supply in a hard, arrogant, self justifying, postmodern world. Again, the law itself hinted at this by speaking of how a blessing for obedience would be that God would  circumcise their heart (Dt. 30:6 "Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live"). The new covenant is of grace- that blessing for obedience is offered anyway to all who simply say yes.   </p><p><em>And their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them</em>- Gk. '<em>logismos</em>'. The internal words, the conscience, accused or excused both are legal words the behaviour; our internal words 'bear witness' as in a court, for or against us. Judgment is ongoing; and we are at times our own accusers:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>The focus upon our innermost thoughts and words spoken only within our own minds continues when we read that God will judge the "secrets" of men in the last day. It's our thoughts which are the essence of us as persons. These will be judged- and the context of <em><a href='B:520 2:1-3'>Rom 2:1-3</a></em> is of internal attitudes like judgmentalism being worthy of condemnation at the last day.<br/><em>According to my preaching of the gospel</em>- the Gospel as preached by Paul includes judgment to come as part of the good news. But the teaching about the judgment seat of Christ is only good news for those sure of their redemption in Christ, those who are now suffering, those who now in their thoughts and hearts are with the Lord but are condemned by others... for the day of judgment will be a turning of tables, a replacing of the external with the internal:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:17'>Rom 2:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if you singular bear the name of a Jew</em>- It's as if Paul is in the middle of giving a lecture and then suddenly addresses himself to one individual in the audience.</p><p><em>And rely upon the law</em>- The Greek idea is of remaining. Again it seems Paul is addressing himself to Christian Jews in the Rome ecclesia who had chosen to remain in the Mosaic law.</p><p><em>And boast in God</em>- As in <em><a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a></em>, a reference to Jewish glorying in having and obeying the Mosaic law. But Paul uses the same word another three times in Romans, about how "we" boast in our reconciliation with God (<em><a href='B:520 5:11'>Rom 5:11</a></em>), in the hope we have of salvation (<em><a href='B:520 5:2'>Rom 5:2</a></em>), and also in our humiliations which prepare us for that time (<em><a href='B:520 5:3'>Rom 5:3</a></em>). Our witness to others is part of this confident boasting about God’s grace. But we can only confidently boast of salvation and reconciliation if by faith we have assured ourselves that these things are present realities, and not merely possible futures for us.</p><p>Paul's rebuke of the Jews in Romans 2 for their reliance on a mixture of worldly wisdom and that of the Mosaic law has many similarities with Job:</p><table><tr><td></p><p><em><a href='B:520 2:17-23'>Rom 2:17-23</a></em>&nbsp;</td><td>Job</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Thou art called a Jew... and makest&nbsp;thy boast of God, and knowest His&nbsp;will, and triest the things that&nbsp;differ (AVmg:), being instructed&nbsp;out&nbsp;of the law;&nbsp;</td><td>A fair description of Job before his trials. Cp. Job's constant &nbsp; reasoning with God about things &nbsp; which differed from&nbsp;his previous concept &nbsp; of God; "Doth not the ear try words?" (<em><a href='B:220 12:11'>Job 12:11</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of&nbsp;them which are in darkness, an</td><td>"I was eyes to the &nbsp; blind" (<em><a href='B:220 29:15'>Job 29:15</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>instructor of the foolish, a&nbsp;teacher&nbsp;of babes, which hast the form of&nbsp;knowledge and of the truth in&nbsp;the law&nbsp;Thou therefore which teachest&nbsp;another,&nbsp;teachest thou not thyself?</td><td>"Thou hast instructed many ... thy words have upholden him that was &nbsp; falling... but now it is come upon&nbsp;thee, and thou &nbsp; faintest" (<em><a href='B:220 4:3-5'>Job 4:3-5</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thou that preachest a man&nbsp;should not&nbsp;steal... commit adultery…&nbsp;(worship)&nbsp;idols... dost thou?</td><td>These were the 3 main &nbsp; things of which the friends accused Job.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thou that makest thy boast of&nbsp;the Law,&nbsp;through breaking the Law&nbsp;dishonourest&nbsp;thou God?" &nbsp;</td><td>Elihu, on God’s &nbsp; behalf, says that &nbsp; Job's boasting of his &nbsp; righteousness &nbsp; implied God was doing &nbsp; wickedly in&nbsp;punishing Job (<em><a href='B:220 34:10'>Job 34:10</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Their belief that they possessed such great wisdom led the Jews to be self-righteous, in that they reasoned that if they were wicked, then their wisdom would reveal this to them. Job and the Jews were in this sense similar.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:18'>Rom 2:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And know His will and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law</em>- The very same Greek words which were spoken to Paul at his conversion by Ananias (<em><a href='B:510 22:14'>Act 22:14</a></em>). This is yet another example of where Paul's conversion experience is alluded to him constantly, consciously and unconsciously, throughout his writings. Paul goes on to talk about how this individual Jew of whom he speaks could approve or prove or judge / discern excellent things- this surely is an allusion to the rabbinical process of casuistic interpretation of Scripture with which Paul had been brought up, and which dialectic is so evident in his Christian writing and reasoning. Surely the individual Jew whom Paul started addressing in <em><a href='B:520 2:17'>Rom 2:17</a></em> is in fact Paul himself. Perhaps he also has in mind the Lord's teaching (using the same Greek words) in <em><a href='B:490 12:47'>Luk 12:47</a></em>, where in the context of responsibility to final judgment, the Lord warns that those who know His will shall be punished more severely than those who don't. Hence Paul's earlier comments about "to the Jew first".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em> This verse and <em><a href='B:520 2:20-23'>Rom 2:20-23</a></em> sound so similar to Paul. He is the Jew out of the audience whom he starts addressing in <em><a href='B:520 2:17'>Rom 2:17</a></em>. Like Peter, his teaching of others is shot through with reference to his own failure and salvation by grace; and he is at pains to apply the exhortations, appeals and warnings he makes to himself personally.</p><p><em>And are confident you yourself</em>- persuaded. The same word is mistranslated "obey" in <em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>. There we read that we are persuaded either of the Gospel, or by anger, judgmentalism etc. Who did the persuading? Presumably Paul's own pride and / or the peer opinion of others in the Jewish peer group:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Are a guide of the blind, a light to those that are in darkness</em>- This and the other similar phrases here and in <em><a href='B:520 2:20'>Rom 2:20</a></em> were all used by the Rabbis to describe their attempts to make Gentiles into Jews by proselytizing. However each phrase can equally be understood with reference to the true preaching of Christ as the light of the world.<br/>As the Lord was the light of those that sat in darkness (<em><a href='B:470 4:16'>Mat 4:16</a></em>), so Paul writes as if all the believers are likewise (<em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Paul points out the humility which we should therefore have in our preaching: there are none that truly understand, that really see; we are all blind. And yet we are "a guide of the blind, a light to them that sit in darkness" (<em><a href='B:520 2:19'>Rom 2:19</a></em>). Therefore we ought to help the blind with an appropriate sense of our own blindness. See on <em><a href='B:470 13:16'>Mat 13:16</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:20'>Rom 2:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A&nbsp;corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth</em>- “Instructor of the foolish… teacher of babes” are Rabbinic terms used for Rabbis and Jewish orthodox missionaries bringing forth ‘babes’ of Gentile converts to Judaism. Such people had the “form of knowledge and truth” another Rabbinic phrase in the Jewish Law. Paul’s hypothetical “O man” (<em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em>) is narrowing down to himself; for very few if any of the initial readership of Romans would’ve been former Rabbis, let alone Rabbis involved in missionary proselytizing. The only Christian former Rabbi and travelling proselytizer we meet in the New Testament is Paul himself. The allusion by Paul to himself rather than pointing the finger at any of his readership would’ve set them at ease, that there were no hidden messages nor hints that he was addressing a specific situation or person in Rome. He was applying his principles to himself, and by so publicly doing so he appeals to each of his readers to likewise personalize the principles to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:21'>Rom 2:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You therefore that teach another, don’t you teach yourself?-</em>&nbsp;Paul was teaching the Romans. Thus the allusion to himself is clear- he who teaches others must teach himself, must apply to himself the principles which pass his lips so easily. He may be referring back to his theme in <em><a href='B:520 2:2-3'>Rom 2:2-3</a></em> - that we have a tendency to assume that Divine truths aren’t relevant to us personally, that punishment for sin and condemning others isn’t, actually, going to come&nbsp;<em>on me</em>, although we know it will surely come&nbsp;<em>on others</em>. And so Paul is saying that he too must be aware of this- that he places himself in the audience of those whom he is teaching. See on <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>You that preach a man should not steal, do you steal?</em>- Stealing was felt to be a crime which could and should be openly, publicly rebuked:&nbsp; I noted on :15 that Paul at this point has in view Jer. 31:30-33, the new covenant. But part of that new covenant was that those under it would not need to be taught by others nor would they teach others; because instead, God would write the spirit of His law on their hearts. So "you therefore that teach another..." would suggest the person in view is not acceptant of the new covenant. And there were clearly many Jewish Christians who had not really accepted it, just as there are many believers today who have not done so. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:22'>Rom 2:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You that say a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?</em>- Sexual double standards is perhaps the most obvious example of hypocrisy. Remember the context of this passage- the list of awful sexual sins at the end of chapter 1 lead Paul in to a discourse on the sin of condemning others for their sins, his point being that to do so was a despising of God’s grace; and that by condemning others for their sin we are in fact guilty of that same sin. And so Paul could be meaning that if we condemn individuals for adultery, it is as if we have ourselves committed adultery, for this would be in harmony with what he has taught earlier in this section (see on <em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>).</p><p><em>You that dread idols</em>- Jewish Rabbis like Paul were well known for their obsession with making any image of God.</p><p><em>Do you rob temples?</em>- The theme which connects the three examples given by Paul is that of stealing, taking that which isn’t yours. ‘Do you steal?’ (v:21) connects with ‘Do you commit adultery?’ because adultery is a stealing of that which isn’t yours but which belongs to your neighbour (<em><a href='B:590 4:6'>1Th 4:6</a></em>); and robbing temples is likewise stealing. Stealing was and is seen in the Middle East as the social evil and crime which could be shouted out against the most. Indeed in many cultures there is some equivalent of the English “Stop thief”:&nbsp;<br/>Temple robbery was something Jews were accused of (<em><a href='B:510 19:37'>Act 19:37</a></em>)- according to Josephus they were renowned for it, justifying it on the basis that the gods who ‘owned’ the treasures did not in fact exist (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp; <em><a href='B:520 4:8'>Rom 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:10'>Rom 4:10</a></em>). So it’s appropriate Paul would choose this example- condemning others, in this case for idolatry, but to our own personal advantage.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You who boast in the law</em>- Again, this is surely a reference by Paul to himself, who boasted of his Jewish roots and knowledge of the Law. The Jews boasted in God (<em><a href='B:520 2:17'>Rom 2:17</a></em> s:w:) and in His law. Later in Romans Paul talks of how the Christian believer boasts in God on account of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 5:11'>Rom 5:11</a></em> s:w:; AV “joy in God”). The Jewish boast in God was proven empty because of human sin and hypocrisy; whereas the Christian can boast in God because s/he is confident in His grace in Christ.</p><p><em>Actually dishonour God through your transgression of the law</em>- The same word has been used by Paul in <em><a href='B:520 1:24'>Rom 1:24</a></em> about sexual perverts dishonouring their bodies. Relentlessly, Paul repeats his point- the apparently grosser sins such as sexual perversion are just as bad and ‘dishonouring’ as those who know the Law, even boasting of it, and yet condemn others for sins like perversion.</p><p>There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: "A fool's&nbsp;<em>anger&nbsp;</em>is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his&nbsp;<em>shame</em>" (<em><a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a></em>); A king's&nbsp;<em>anger</em>&nbsp;is against a man who&nbsp;<em>shames</em>&nbsp;him (<em><a href='B:240 14:35'>Pro 14:35</a></em>). Or consider <em><a href='B:90 20:34'>1Sa 20:34</a></em>: "So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce&nbsp;<em>anger</em>, and did eat no meat the second day of the month... because his father had done him&nbsp;<em>shame</em>". Job's<em>&nbsp;anger</em>&nbsp;was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had&nbsp;<em>shamed</em>&nbsp;him in their speeches (<em><a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a></em>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will "curse in anger... and be ashamed" (<em><a href='B:230 109:28'>Psa 109:28</a></em>).</p><p>The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed... their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (<em><a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer 20:11</a></em>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God’s grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so "they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (<em><a href='B:510 19:27-28'>Act 19:27-28</a></em>). It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we<em>&nbsp;shame</em>&nbsp;God (<em><a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a></em>); we&nbsp;<em>despise</em>&nbsp;his desire for our repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>).</p><p>The chapter has been arguing against judgmentalism and condemning of sinners. This is perhaps the rank breaking of the Law which Paul is talking about.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:24'>Rom 2:24</a></em> The Jews were so sensitive to honouring God’s Name that they wouldn’t even pronounce it. And yet their hypocrisy led to it being blasphemed world-wide. This is Paul’s point- that hypocrisy is as bad a sin as the crudest, most widely spread blasphemy:&nbsp;</p><p><em>For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written</em>- In <em><a href='B:290 52:5'>Isa 52:5</a></em>, where God says that Judah in Babylon had caused His Name to be blasphemed, but (the prophesy continues) because of that He would reveal His Name to His people as it is in His Son, and they would ultimately accept Him and thus the blasphemy of God’s Name would cease. Yet Paul is writing in Romans to Jewish Christians. Clearly they had not really grasped Christ as intended.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:25'>Rom 2:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For circumcision indeed profits, if you be a doer of the law; but if you be a transgressor of the law</em>- The corollary of this is that Christ will “profit” s:w. nothing if we chose to be circumcised (<em><a href='B:550 5:2'>Gal 5:2</a></em>). The analogy of a wedding ring is perhaps helpful to explain Paul’s sense here. A wedding ring, a ritualistic external token, is helpful as a sign of marriage; but if one breaks the marriage covenant, the wedding ring cp. Circumcision becomes bereft of meaning and just a pointless external physicality.</p><p><em>Your circumcision has become uncircumcision</em>- Humanly speaking in the first century, this was impossible. Once the flesh was cut off, this was irreversible. But in God’s opinion- and that surely is Paul’s point- circumcision no longer counts if the covenant which defines the Law is broken. The Jew is therefore as the Gentile, the circumcised becomes uncircumcised because the Law, the old covenant which defined the whole relationship, has been broken.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:26'>Rom 2:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?-</em>&nbsp;Throughout Romans, the point is made that the Lord&nbsp;<em>counts as righteous</em>&nbsp;those that believe; righteousness is&nbsp;<em>imputed</em>&nbsp;to us the unrighteous (<em><a href='B:520 2:26'>Rom 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:3-6'>Rom 4:3-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:8-11'>Rom 4:8-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:22-24'>Rom 4:22-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:8'>Rom 9:8</a></em>). But the very same Greek word is used of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;self-perception. We must count / impute ourselves as righteous men and women, and count each other as righteous on the basis of recognising each other’s faith rather than works: “Therefore we conclude we count / impute / consider that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law... Likewise reckon impute ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (<em><a href='B:520 3:28'>Rom 3:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em>). We should&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;clean and righteous, and act accordingly, both in our own behaviour and in our feelings towards each other. The argument here is leading up to the statement in :29 [see notes there] that circumcision now means the receipt of the Spirit of Christ. He was who He was, perfect, as a result of His formation through being obedient to the law. In this sense He fulfilled the law, not so much in 'fulfilling' the types and shadows, but in achieving the holy, just and good character which the law was inclined to inculcate. Having His spirit therefore means that we are in essence totally obedient to the law. Physically uncircumcised Gentile believers were therefore in this sense totally obedient to the law. They thereby fulfilled the law- the uncircumcision "fulfil the law" (:27) in that the Lord Jesus fulfilled it, resulting in His perfect character, and they have received of His spirit.</p><p>The readership in the Roman ecclesia appears to have been mixed, Jew and Gentile. The Gentile world of darkness doesn’t keep the righteousness of the Law. “The uncircumcision” here must surely refer to the uncircumcised Christian believers, especially those in the Roman ecclesia. Indeed, “the circumcision” in <em><a href='B:510 10:45'>Act 10:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:2'>Act 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em> refers to the circumcised&nbsp;<em>believers in Christ</em>; and so it’s likely that here in Romans it has the same meaning. The Gentile believers were counted as Jews, under the new definition of ‘Israel’ which there now was in Christ: “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (<em><a href='B:570 3:3'>Phi 3:3</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge you</em>- The Christian Gentile believers, who were uncircumcised, would judge / condemn the Jewish Christian believer who trusted in keeping the letter of the Law and in his circumcision rather than in Christ. They would ‘condemn’ them in that at the last day, those rejected will as it were be compared against other human beings and be relatively ‘condemned’ by their example (<em><a href='B:470 12:39-41'>Mat 12:39-41</a></em>). Paul has been emphasizing the need not to condemn our brethren (<em><a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a></em> etc:)- he’s saying that it is God who will use us to condemn others, of His choosing, at the last day judgment. The very existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned (<em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>), just as Noah's very example was a condemnation of his world (<em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>) and the very existence of the repentant Ninevites condemned first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians would judge an unbeliever (<em><a href='B:530 14:24'>1Co 14:24</a></em>). The fact the Pharisees' children cast out demons condemned the Pharisees (<em><a href='B:470 12:27'>Mat 12:27</a></em>). This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted; they will bow in shame at their feet (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). Perhaps it is in this sense that "we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>)- rejected ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Revelation 2, 3? The point is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the contrast it throws upon them. And this was supremely true of the Lord. No wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay the supreme "judgment of this world".</p><p>"Shall not uncircumcision (i:e. the Gentiles)... judge thee (first century Israel), who... dost transgress the law?" (<em><a href='B:520 2:27'>Rom 2:27</a></em>) is an odd way of putting it. How can believing Gentiles “judge" first century Jews who refused to believe? Surely there must be some connection with <em><a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a></em>, which speaks of Gentiles such as the men of Nineveh rising "in judgment with this generation (first century Israel), and shall condemn it: because they repented...". I can't say there is a conscious allusion being made here. But the similarity is too great to just shrug off.</p><p>We may again need to read in an ellipsis when we read that uncircumcision fulfils the Law. The Gentile Christians fulfilled the essence of the Jewish Law. This was a paradox- the Law demanded circumcision, so how could the uncircumcised fulfil the Law? Another explanation is to understand that they ‘fulfil the Law’ in that God counts them as having done so. And as soon as we think about fulfilling the Law, our minds surely go to the fact that the Lord Jesus was the One who fulfilled the Law by His life of perfect obedience. And <em><a href='B:520 8:4'>Rom 8:4</a></em> makes the point that the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled “in us” because of the fact that the Lord Jesus died His representative death for us. Thereby, His righteousness is counted to us. He, the circumcised, perfect keeper of God’s law, died as our representative. If we identify with Him by faith and baptism into Him, then women and uncircumcised men alike are all counted to be as Him. And in this way, uncircumcised, disobedient, law-breaking believers in Christ will as it were condemn those who have attempted to justify themselves by the circumcision ritual and obedience to the letter of the Law.</p><p><em>Who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law?-</em>&nbsp;“Letter” is Gk:&nbsp;<em>gramma</em>, s:w:, “Scriptures”. Neither the Scriptures nor circumcision in themselves make a person break the Law of Moses. So we must read in an ellipsis here. By trusting in our obedience to these things we can put ourselves in a position where we are coming before God on the basis of justification by our own obedience rather than our faith in Christ. In this lies the danger of ‘Biblicism’ when it’s used the wrong way. If we are obsessed with obedience to the letter of God’s Word and external, ritual signs such as circumcision, then we shall end up condemned as law breakers- because perfect obedience to God’s word is actually impossible.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:28'>Rom 2:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh-&nbsp;</em>This&nbsp;was a radical, hard hitting statement. And coming from a Hebrew of the Hebrews like Saul of Tarsus, it really was stinging. Self-identity in the Mediterranean world of the first century was all tied up with who one was externally. The new identity in Christ challenges our self-perceptions to the absolute core:&nbsp;<br/><em><a href='B:520 2:28'>Rom 2:28</a></em> explicitly states the principle of our real spiritual self being hidden, by saying that the true believer will "inwardly" (same word translated "hidden" in <em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>) circumcise his heart. The works of the flesh are "manifest", but by inference those of the Spirit are hidden (<em><a href='B:550 5:18-19'>Gal 5:18-19</a></em>). <em><a href='B:470 6:4'>Mat 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em> gives triple emphasis to the fact that God sees in secret. He alone truly and fully appreciates our spiritual self. This is sure comfort on the many occasions where our spirituality is misunderstood, both in the world and in the ecclesia. Yet it also provides an endless challenge; moment by moment, our true spiritual being is known by the Almighty, "Thou whose eyes in darkness see, and try the heart of man". The spiritual man which God now knows ("sees") and relates to, will be what He sees at the day of judgment. God dwells in "secret", i:e. in the hidden place, as well as seeing in "secret". God is a God who hides Himself (<em><a href='B:290 57:17'>Isa 57:17</a></em>) due to human sinfulness. If we fail to see the spiritual man in our brethren, this must be due to a lack of real spiritual vision in us. It is human sin which is somehow getting in the way.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter</em>- It was indeed a radical thing for Paul to re-define self-identity from the outward and visible to the internal and invisible. External appearances were and are what define a person, both within society and to him or her self. By becoming “in Christ”, this all changes- radically. “Inwardly” is the same word translated “secrets” when we read a few verses earlier that God will judge the secrets, the internal things (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>). This is what He looks upon:&nbsp;</p><p>It’s significant that circumcision was in any case a private matter. The Canaanite tribes each had various markings or tattoos, usually on the face or somewhere public and visible, just as some African tribes do today. It was immediately obvious that the person was from whatever tribe. God’s people, however, had a body marking on the most hidden and intimate place on a man’s body, which was not on public display. This in itself reflected how relationship with God was and is something intimate, personal and not immediately visible, in a sense, to the world around us. We who line up in a supermarket look, smell, talk and chose our shopping in a virtually identical way to the world around us. Our separation unto God is internal, intimate and not externally visible. Note that Paul has been talking about not judging; and from that he moves on to talk about circumcision. The connection is in the fact that we cannot judge others because we can only view them externally; God will judge the “secrets” (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>), the internal things, because the sign of our covenant connection with God is by its very nature internal and personal to the believer and God. We cannot possibly, therefore, judge others- for we see only the visible and external.</p><p>Circumcision under the new covenant doesn't refer to anything outward, visibly verifiable. For now "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter" (<em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>)- seeing we can't judge the secret things of others' hearts, how can we tell who is circumcised in heart or not? The 'sealing' of God’s people today, the proof that they are the Lord's (<em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em>), is not anything external, but the internal matter of being sealed with the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>), or being sealed with a mark in the mind / forehead, as Revelation puts it (<em><a href='B:730 7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 9:4'>Rev 9:4</a></em>). This is the seal of the new covenant which replaces circumcision as the seal of the old covenant- Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised" (Rom. 4:11). Eph. 3:16 is clear that the Spirit works upon the "inner man"; this is how we are circumcised "inwardly": "strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man". This is why John argues that we know that He abides in us by His Spirit which He gave us; it is the litmus test of Christianity and covenant relationship with God. Just as circumcision was the "sign" of being in the [new] covenant made with Abraham (Gen. 17:11). But as discussed on :15, the gift of the Spirit is related to the new covenant. That gift and membership of the covenant is shown by breaking bread. "My covenant will be in your flesh / This is the covenant in your flesh" (Gen. 17:13) is clearly alluded to in the words of  for an breaking of bread: "This is the new covenant in My blood". 
Circumcision has to be done to a man by someone else, just as the law has to be written upon hearts (:15). It requires his complete exposure to someone else, and trust in them. This stripping naked for circumcision is alluded to in Col. 2:11: "the putting off [Gk. stripping off] of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ". It is not only that undressing is referred to, but even more intimately- the removed foreskin reveals the most intimate part of the penis. This speaks of our most intimate revealing to God and His Son. We too have to reveal our most intimate heart to God, that He might act upon us through His Son. For we are circumcised by Him ["the circumcision of Christ", Col. 2:11, spoken of as occurring at a specific point in time, "In whom you were circumcised", i.e. through the gift of the Spirit at baptism, which is in view in :12]. The idea of the Lord Jesus as the circumciser is perhaps present in Rom. 15:8, where the phrase "a minister of the circumcision" could imply He is the minister / priest who performs the circumcision. Receipt of the Spirit in our hearts, and the work of the Lord Jesus in our hearts, is therefore the equivalent of circumcision under the old covenant. Phil. 3:2,3 warn against accepting physical circumcision exactly because of this: "For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by means of the spirit". The gift of the Spirit enables our serving of God. Notice that Paul talks of "we" as if he discounted his own circumcision as being of any meaning. "We", the truly circumcised, are those who are empowered by the Spirit to serve God. 
Although in practice the priests circumcised children and proselytes, there is no Biblical statement about the place where circumcision was to be performed, nor by whom. This omission shows again the very personal nature of it, and that the meaning is not predicated upon the presence of standard religious dimensions such as place or priest / holy man performing it. Likewise the circumcision of the heart is very personal, performed without hands by the Lord, and is quite independent of church in every sense. The fact circumcision was not unique to Israelites ought to have made them realize that it spoke of something spiritual. It was practiced in Egypt, and Jer. 9:24,25 makes the point that Egypt, Edom, Moab and the Arab tribes were like Judah in that they were circumcised in the flesh but not in the heart.
All this is the very opposite of salvation by works or intellectualism. This is what makes us "a Jew", for if any man lack the spirit of Christ, he is none of His. Just as the uncircumcised were not part of God's people and were outside the covenant with Abraham, which is the new covenant (Gen. 17:13,14). But just as circumcision was unlike the visible cuttings in the flesh that defined some other tribes, so our covenant relationship with God is not immediately obvious to the world. We dress, speak, smell and appear as they do. But we are set aside for God in our hearts. Circumcision means to cut off, and the term is used about the condemnation of the wicked (Ps. 58:7; 90:6; 118:10-12). Self-circumcision therefore includes the recognition that we deserve death, a self-condemnation, that we might enter covenant relationship and eternal life. The flesh will be "cut off" in the day of final condemnation, and we do that to ourselves in this life. If we would judge / condemn ourselves now, with the breaking of bread as a help towards that, we will not be judged / condemned (1 Cor. 11:31).  
</p><p><em>Whose praise is not of men but of God</em>- We will be praised by God in that He will ‘go through’ all our good deeds, when we fed the hungry and visited those in prison (<em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>). He will rejoice over us, glory in us, in the way that only a lover can over the beloved whom He views through eyes of love, counting perfection to us in His eyes (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). This is the real meaning of being ‘Jewish’- for Paul is making a word play on the word ‘Jew’ coming from ‘Judah’, the praised one (<em><a href='B:10 49:8'>Gen 49:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:1'>Rom 3:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What advantage then has the Jew?&nbsp;Or what is the profit of circumcision?-&nbsp;</em>Whilst accepting Paul’s Divine inspiration, I have always found the logic of this and the next few verses to be difficult and twisted. It’s as if Paul wishes to say something nice about the Jews to as it were keep on board the Jews in his audience, having spoken against the significance of natural Jewishness so strongly in <em><a href='B:520 2:27-29'>Rom 2:27-29</a></em>. But what he says there isn’t quite compensated for by the reasoning he now comes out with- or so it seems to me. If natural descent is so irrelevant and Jewishness has been redefined, what real advantage is there, then, in being ethnically Jewish? “Advantage” translates a Greek word which is a superlative meaning more ‘pre-eminence’, ‘exceeding abundance’. Paul appears to say that the Jews do have indeed such a superlative position; whereas elsewhere in this context Paul speaks as if the Jews are as sinful as or even more sinful than the Gentiles, and that both are “under sin” (<em><a href='B:520 3:9'>Rom 3:9</a></em>). Both need baptism into Christ to be the true seed of Abraham (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). Paul’s claim that their amazing blessing and advantage is because the Law was given to their fathers seems to strangely contradict the Law being elsewhere described as “weak and beggarly elements” (<em><a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a></em>), “weak through the flesh”, whose glory was nothing, as dirty garments, compared to the excellency and surpassing wonder of Christ. I therefore suggest in the light of all this that we may be justified in reading Paul’s words in <em><a href='B:520 3:1-2'>Rom 3:1-2</a></em> as a kind of sarcasm: “What superlative, amazing pre-eminence then has the Jew Or what profit at all is there in being circumcised Much every way, indeed The important thing to note is that the oracles of God were firstly given to them…’- and then Paul builds on that point to speak of Israel’s disobedience to those commandments, leading up to his crescendo of convicting Jew and Gentile as desperate sinners who must throw themselves upon God’s grace:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:2'>Rom 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Much every way First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God</em>- “Entrusted” is Gk:&nbsp;<em>pisteuo</em>, God had faith in Israel (<em><a href='B:520 3:3'>Rom 3:3</a></em>), in giving them the commandments. He believed in them. The God who can know the end from the beginning allowed His emotion of love to take such root in Him that He as it were allowed His omniscience to be limited, just as He at times limits His omnipotence; and He desperately believed in them. For loving someone elicits also faith and hope in them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:3'>Rom 3:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For what if some were without faith?</em>- Israel never adopted atheism nor did they ever inform Yahweh He was no longer their national deity. Yet for all their professions of faith and loyalty to the temple cult, God viewed them as unbelievers. Or it could be that Paul’s implication is that they did not believe in Christ, in their Saviour Messiah. In the context, "faith" is faith that God will save His people and forgive them by grace. For that is how "faith" is going to be used later in this chapter.</p><p><em>Shall their lack of faith make of no effect the faithfulness of God?</em>- God’s faith and hope in His people. See on <em><a href='B:520 3:2'>Rom 3:2</a></em>. The awkward translations can make us miss the wonderful point here: Israel’s unbelief didn’t abolish Gk:, do away with, make of no effect AV, God’s faith in Israel. Here we see His love, His grace; a faith and hope in a weak other party which can only come from very deep love. They didn’t believe in Him, but He didn’t stop believing in them:&nbsp;</p><p>“Some" Jews didn’t believe (<em><a href='B:520 3:3'>Rom 3:3</a></em>); the majority, actually, but the Father is more gentle than that. The whole tragic history of God’s relationship with Israel is a sure proof of His essentially positive character. Right at their birth by the Red Sea, the Almighty records that "the people feared Yahweh, and believed Yahweh, and His servant Moses" (<em><a href='B:20 14:23'>Exo 14:23</a></em>). No mention is made of the Egyptian idols they were still cuddling (we don't directly learn about them until Ezekiel 20). Nor do we learn that this "belief" of theirs lasted a mere three days; nor of the fact that they rejected Moses, and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. "There was no strange god" with Israel on their journey (<em><a href='B:50 32:12'>Deu 32:12</a></em>); but there were (<em><a href='B:370 5:26'>Amo 5:26</a></em>). The reconciliation is that God counted as Israel as devoted solely to Him. The Angel told Moses that the people would probably want to come up the mountain, closer to God, when in fact in reality they ran away when they saw the holiness of God; almost suggesting that the Angel over-estimated their spiritual enthusiasm (<em><a href='B:20 19:21-24'>Exo 19:21-24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>). Likewise the Angel told Moses that the people would hear him, "and believe thee for ever" (<em><a href='B:20 19:9'>Exo 19:9</a></em>). Things turned out the opposite. At this time, God saw no iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God forbid. Yes, let God be found true</em>- Paul is continually using legal language. Let God be found in a legal sense, through legal, forensic analysis true Gk. and faithful by man’s judgment of God. The amazing statement in <em><a href='B:520 3:3'>Rom 3:3</a></em> - that God remains faithful even when we are not- is hard to believe. Paul understands our internal doubts as to the extent of God’s grace as man effectively putting God in the dock and trying the veracity of His claims. In one of the finest paradoxes of all, Paul will go on in Romans to use this very legal language to describe how God the judge as it were turns it all around, puts man, us sinners, in the dock, and justifies us the humanly unjustifiable:&nbsp; And yet our lack of real faith in the certainty of our salvation, of the reality of His grace in Christ, is in fact putting God in the dock. And He answers up, and condemns us- and yet then saves us, we who sought to condemn Him.</p><p><em>But every man a liar</em>- In that our false accusations against the real extent of God’s saving grace are exposed as untrue and lies.</p><p><em>As it is written: You must be justified in Your words</em>- God comes through the trial of His grace by doubting man as justified, declared right. And yet this very term is what Paul uses to describe how God declares us righteous in&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;judgment of us. We judge God, but in the end, God judges us.</p><p><em>And must prevail when You come before judgment&nbsp;</em>Prevail or “overcome” is the legal word for winning a case in court. The idea is “so that you may be victorious when you go to court”. It is our doubts as to the extent of God’s grace, that He abides faithful even throughout our unfaithfulness, which is effectively our bringing God to court, to judgment. Paul is here quoting <em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>, which were David’s words of reflection upon his sin unto death, and God’s forgiveness of him. He reflected that he had sinned&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;God might be justified when He is brought to judgment by us. Again we are up against an amazing grace. God uses our sin, our doubt of His forgiveness, in order to declare Himself yet more righteous when He is put in the dock to answer against our false charges: ‘Is He really able to forgive me&nbsp;<em>that</em>? Will He really not hold&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;eternally against me? Will I&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;be saved, sinner that I am? Can God really accept&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;after what I have done, all I have failed to do as I should, all I have not been…?’. These are the kinds of questions with which we accuse God. Effectively the case against God’s grace is that He will&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;actually forgive, justify and save weak sinners. And He gloriously wins the case against us. And He even uses our sin, as He used David’s (who becomes a figure of us all), in order to prove this to us and to the world. And so, in a matchless logical&nbsp;<em>tour de force</em>, Paul triumphs in <em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>: “Our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God”, just as David sinned&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;God’s righteousness would be declared.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God</em>- see on <em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em> “And overcome...". God commends His love to us in that when we were still sinners, Christ died for us, the just for unjust (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>). Thus on all sides we have God’s saving love commended to us- by our own unrighteousness on the one hand, and by God’s self-commendation of His desire to save us through giving His Son to die for us, taking the initiative whilst we were as yet unborn and still from His perspective “sinners”. The Greek for “commend” means literally to place beside, e.g. <em><a href='B:490 9:32'>Luk 9:32</a></em> “the men that&nbsp;<em>stood with&nbsp;</em>him”. God and man come to stand together in that court room. Our unrighteousness and His righteousness stand together. The accused God comes to stand together with the accusers our doubts, sinful man; and then the roles change, God becomes the accuser and we become the accused, and He through His love comes to again stand with us, having condemned and yet then justified us. Truly, even under inspiration, Paul is lost for words: “What shall we say?”:&nbsp;</p><p>David recognized that God works through our sinfulness- he is effectively saying in <em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>: 'I sinned so that You might be justified…'. These words are quoted in <em><a href='B:520 3:4-5'>Rom 3:4-5</a></em> in the context of Paul's exultation that "&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God" - in just the same way as David’s did Because God displays His righteousness every time He justifies a repentant sinner, He is in a sense making Himself yet more righteous. We must see things from God’s perspective, from the standpoint of giving glory to God’s righteous attributes. If we do this, then we can see through the ugliness of sin, and come to terms with our transgressions the more effectively. And Paul quotes David’s sin with Bathsheba as our supreme example in this. We along with all the righteous ought to “shout for joy” that David really was forgiven (<em><a href='B:230 32:11'>Psa 32:11</a></em>)- for there is such hope for us now. David is our example. And yet the intensity of David’s repentance must be ours. He hung his head as one in whose mouth there were no more arguments, hoping only in the Lord’s grace (<em><a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a></em> RVmg:). Notice too how <em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em> “Have mercy on me, O God…” is quoted by the publican in <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>. He felt that David’s prayer and situation was to be his. And he is held up as the example for each of us:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>What shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visits with anger? (I speak after the manner of men)-</em>&nbsp;“Visits with anger” is another legal term, ‘to judicially afflict’. God would not be and is not wrong to press the case against our sin to its final term- vengeance, wrath, as will be seen at the final judgment. Would He be wrong to do this to us? Of course not:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:6'>Rom 3:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God forbid. For then how shall God judge the world?</em>- God will indeed take vengeance, press the legal case to its ultimate end, in condemning the unbelieving world. The judgment against sin cannot be minimized just because we know that it will not in fact be meted out upon those who believe in Christ- see on <em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>. I prefer to translate this verse as an exclamation: “Because how much i:e. ‘how severely’ shall God judge the world”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if the Truth of God</em>- the profound truth of <em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em>, that God is willing and eager to save sinners, to remain faithful when we are unfaithful (<em><a href='B:520 3:3'>Rom 3:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>Through my lie abounded to His glory</em>- this is the same idea as in <em><a href='B:520 3:5'>Rom 3:5</a></em>, that our unrighteousness actually commends the righteousness of God. Every man is a liar, a false accuser of God’s grace (<em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em>) in that we all doubt the reality of God’s saving grace for me personally. And Paul focuses on himself- he along with every man is one of those liars. Yet his doubt, his false accusation of God’s saving grace, only abounds unto God’s glory, in that God will and is finally justified in all this by forgiving, justifying and saving us.</p><p><em>Why am I also still judged as a sinner?</em>- A reference to how his opponents judged him as a sinner. But as he elsewhere says, we are to pay no attention to how men judge us, because the only judgment worth anything is God’s (<em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em>). If we are judged and justified by God, so what how men judge us?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:8'>Rom 3:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And why not do evil that good may come? (As some people slanderously charge us with saying-&nbsp;</em>Paul’s opponents repeated the gossip “we be slanderously reported” and fabricated primary evidence that they had actually heard Paul say “and... affirm” that therefore we should sin so that blessing would come from God. Note the legal language again- they were as it were putting Paul in the dock and making affirmations against him. Vilification is something which every preacher and teacher of the Gospel has to put up with, and we shouldn’t be surprised when we encounter it. Paul speaks of such slanderers and word twisters in very tough terms: “Whose damnation is just”. This of course is in the context of his having just pointed out that the legal condemnation of the unbelieving world is just and right. He perceived his critics within the ecclesia as actually being in the unbelieving world. He also sees their damnation as a present thing- human behaviour is played out before the judgment seat of God right now. It’s not that He is unaware of it and will only consider it at the future judgment seat. Slanderous words and fabricated evidence against God’s children is seen as an ‘affirmation’ made in the Divine court- and it will be judged with damnation.</p><p><em>Their condemnation is just)-&nbsp;</em>To God, slanderers and false teachers within the ecclesia already are given their condemnation (<em><a href='B:520 3:8'>Rom 3:8</a></em>). "The Lord shall judge the people... God judgeth (present tense) the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day... he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows" (<em><a href='B:230 7:8'>Psa 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 7:11-13'>Psa 7:11-13</a></em>). God is now judging men, and preparing their final reward. For the wicked, the arrow is prepared in the bow, the sword is sharpened- all waiting for the final day in which the present judgments will be executed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:9'>Rom 3:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>What then? Are we better than they?</em>- RV “in better case”, do we have a better legal case than them? The “they” could be the Gentiles- as if Paul is saying that we Jews have no better case than the Gentiles. In this case our retranslation of <em><a href='B:520 3:1'>Rom 3:1</a></em> see there would be the more justified- for Paul would be saying that actually Jews have no real advantage over Gentiles. But the “they” contextually would more comfortably refer to the unbelieving world (<em><a href='B:520 3:6'>Rom 3:6</a></em>). We have no better case than them, because both Jew and Gentile are all sinners.</p><p><em><br/>No, in no way. For we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Gentiles</em>- To legally accuse, RV “laid to the charge”. It is in fact God who does the accusing; but Paul for a moment sees us as on His side, accusing all humanity, ourselves included, of sin.</p><p><em><br/>That they are all under sin-</em>Paul alludes here when he says that “I am carnal, sold under sin” (<em><a href='B:520 7:14'>Rom 7:14</a></em>). And yet he also draws the contrast between being “under the law” and now after baptism being “under grace” (<em><a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a></em>). Paul sees himself from outside himself when he says that he has legally accused all men of being sinners- and he includes himself in that mass of humanity. Repeatedly, he wishes to emphasize that he too is a sinner and not, as the teacher, somehow separate from sinful humanity. He sets a great example to every teacher and preacher in the ecclesia. For he previously warned against the human tendency to assume that what happens to all men will somehow not happen to&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:520 2:2-3'>Rom 2:2-3</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>Paul speaks of both Jew and Gentile as being “under the power of sin” (<em><a href='B:520 3:9'>Rom 3:9</a></em> RSV) – which in itself suggests that he saw “sin” personified as a power. If sin is indeed personified by the Bible writers – what real objection can there be to the idea of this personification being at times referred to as ‘Satan’, the adversary? It has been argued that Paul was well aware of the concept of dualism which the Jews had picked up in Babylonian captivity, i:e. the idea that there is a ‘Satan’ god opposed to the true God; but he reapplies those terms to the conflict he so often describes between flesh and spirit, which goes on within the human mind.<br/>3:10 The quotation from <em><a href='B:230 14:1-3'>Psa 14:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 53:1-3'>Psa 53:1-3</a></em> is about the fools who say in their heart that there is no God. Yet Paul applies this to every one of us, himself included. What he’s doing here is similar to what he does at the end of Romans 1 - he speaks of the grossest sins such as sexual perversion and reasons that we are all in essence guilty and condemned as serious sinners before God. Here he quotes passages which speak of effective atheism and applies them to us all, himself included- even though atheism was abhorrent to the Jews, and Paul may have seemed the last person to be an atheist. But the ‘atheism’ of <em><a href='B:230 14:1'>Psa 14:1</a></em> occurs within the psychological thought processes of the human mind- the fool says in his heart that there is no God. In the context of Romans, Paul is arguing that we call God a liar when we disbelieve His offer of justification and salvation. To deny this is to effectively say in our hearts that there is no God. If God is, then He is a Saviour God. To deny that He will save me is effectively to say He doesn’t exist; for a God who won’t save me may as well not exist. Far too many people claim some level of belief in God’s existence, but in their hearts deny Him, in that they personally doubt whether His promised salvation is really true for me.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one</em>- The “none righteous” connects with the fact that the Gospel is for both Jew and Gentile (:9). The Jews were not “the righteous”, as Judaism loved to claim, because there is no single righteous person except the Lord Jesus. ‘Righteousness’ is a major concept in Judaism. “The righteous” is a term often used about faithful Jews. But Paul is saying that not one of them is righteous. All stand in need therefore of God’s imputed righteousness, which is given by faith in the Lord Jesus and location within Him. The source passage of the quotation in <em><a href='B:230 14:1-3'>Psa 14:1-3</a></em> is saying that from God’s viewpoint, He sees none righteous- even though Judaism declared their saints “righteous”, this was not God’s judgment. We note that Paul is quoting rather freely from the Septuagint; quotation and interpretation are so often combined in Paul, as was the custom of the rabbis. The context of Psalms 14 appears to be of thanksgiving for salvation by grace, a salvation that was not deserved, seeing all men are sinners. And this of course is exactly Paul’s context.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:11'>Rom 3:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There are none that understand</em>- In the context, understands, perceives, the reality that God will really save me. But not understanding is paralleled with sinning; ‘understanding’ in Hebrew thought referred to relationship. Thus to sleep with a woman was to ‘know’ her. This is not a lament over all the misguided theology and wrong interpretations of the Bible; rather is it a lament that sin has damaged the relationship of every man with his God.</p><p><em>There are none that seek God</em>- Translating the Hebraism for ‘to worship’. Nobody really grasps the reality of personal salvation and falls to the ground in worship as they should. If we would only let ourselves go and realize that His desire to save me is greater than my failure, that my sin is no barrier to His grace- we would be the most ecstatic and profoundly devoted worshippers of Him. But actually nobody really is like this, for their faith is not total and therefore their worship cannot be either, whatever outward appearance of ecstasy and profound expressions it may appear to have, in lyrics and music.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:12'>Rom 3:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable</em>- although quoting still from <em><a href='B:230 14:1-3'>Psa 14:1-3</a></em>, the idea is very similar to “we like sheep have gone astray” (<em><a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a></em>). We sin because of our group mentality, the influence of others is so strong upon us, we sin because we are sheep who follow the rest of the flock rather than stand alone against sin. Peer pressure is simply far stronger than we can ever imagine. In the context, Paul is reading “all” and “together” as meaning that both Jew and Gentile have alike gone astray, united and undivided in their joint sinfulness, no matter how they may culturally differ in the flesh.</p><p><em>There is none that does good, no, not so much as one</em>- The Greek word essentially means profitable, useful. The contrast is with how we are all become “unprofitable”- none is profitable to God. It’s not that nobody ever does any good deed; rather the idea is that we are like the vine tree, not useful of ourselves to God (<em><a href='B:330 15:2-6'>Eze 15:2-6</a></em>) unless He justifies us and makes us useful in His service.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:13'>Rom 3:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Their throat is an open tomb, with their tongues they have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips</em>- The connection is surely with how Paul has said that all men, himself included, are liars (<em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>). Yet the lie he had there in view was the lie that God will not save me, will not and cannot justify me as He has promised. And in this we falsely accuse God, putting Him in the dock. Paul talks of this in the harshest of language here, as if we are poison spitters, the seed of the serpent, in how we speak against God. This is a theme with Paul- to use exaggerated and extreme language about our disbelief and sinfulness:&nbsp;</p><p>Because of God’s abhorrence of sin,&nbsp;sins of ignorance&nbsp;were still counted as offences against God, requiring atonement. This should really humble us-&nbsp;<em>if we are sensitive to this fact</em>. It therefore follows that we should lift up our voice for understanding of God’s ways, for ignorant sin is still sin to Him- even though His judgment of us may possibly take into account our level of appreciation. In this context we should also be aware that God remembers unforgiven sin. Over time we can forget that we cursed our wife on 6:6:96 or whenever and never bowed down in repentance. But He doesn’t. The haziness of our memories can work as a kind of pseudo-atonement for us. With Him there is no distinction between past and present and future. The sin remains before Him. By the law comes the knowledge of sin&nbsp;<em>to men</em>, but this doesn’t mean they aren’t culpable for those sins before God (<em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:7'>Rom 7:7</a></em>)- for sins of ignorance still needed atonement. “Sin is not imputed when there is no law” (<em><a href='B:520 3:13'>Rom 3:13</a></em>) most likely means, in this light, that it is not imputed by those who do the sin. But God still notices…&nbsp; We only have to consider the passion of Peter's appeal to Israel in <em><a href='B:510 3:17-19'>Act 3:17-19</a></em>: "I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did your rulers... repent ye&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>”. His Jewish hearers would immediately have spotted the allusion back to the Mosaic protocol about what to do when you and your rulers realized you'd committed sins of ignorance. But the sacrifice required was now not an animal- it was the sacrifice of a broken heart and a baptism into Jesus.</p><p>It should be noted that verses 13-18 are quoting from the Septuagint of Psalms 14 - they aren’t found in the Hebrew text. Time and again the inspired New Testament writers quote from the LXX rather than the Hebrew Masoretic text, often preferring the LXX over the MT, and in this case accepting the LXX addition of verses which the MT omits. It’s hard to gauge the wider significance of this. The LXX versions of the genealogies in Genesis would, e.g., not support the contention that the Genesis 1 creation occurred 4000 years before the birth of Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:14'>Rom 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness-&nbsp;</em>This and <em><a href='B:520 3:16'>Rom 3:16</a></em> especially could be appropriate to the descriptions of the rejected at the day of judgment. The idea being that we are all rejected, for we are all sinners; but by grace, the believers in Christ have been declared righteous. We seem to have Paul declaring the sinfulness of humanity in the most graphic terms he can- quoting verses which immediately trigger the reaction: “But that’s not quite true of me. I may be a sinner, but I don’t do&nbsp;<em>that</em>”, e.g. cursing and blaspheming all day long. I think this is intentional; for Paul writes very sensitive to his audience’s likely reaction. It’s similar to how he speaks about the grossest moral sins such as sexual perversion in chapter 1, and then proceeds to count us all guilty in essence. It’s a powerful device to try to highlight to us all the extent of human sinfulness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:15'>Rom 3:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Their feet are swift to shed blood</em>- Paul may be quoting this and applying it to us all in the sense that he gave full weight to the Lord’s teaching that the hateful thought is as bad as murder. Or he may be wishing to shock us with the extent of our sinful position (see on <em><a href='B:520 3:14'>Rom 3:14</a></em>).</p><p>Eliphaz thought there were only a few very sinful people in the world (<em><a href='B:220 15:35'>Job 15:35</a></em>); but His words are quoted by the Spirit in <em><a href='B:290 59:4'>Isa 59:4</a></em> concerning the whole nation of Israel; and this in turn is quoted in <em><a href='B:520 3:15-17'>Rom 3:15-17</a></em> concerning the whole human race. This same path of progressive realization of our sinfulness must be trodden by each faithful individual, as well as on a communal level:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:16'>Rom 3:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Destruction</em>- Gk. ‘a dashing to pieces’, perhaps an allusion to how the stone of Messiah’s second coming would dash the kingdoms of men to pieces at His return (<em><a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a></em>). But sinners are going now in way of such destruction. Damnation begins now- in the way of life people chose to live:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And misery are in their ways</em>- The wretchedness of the condemned. But remember Paul is applying this to us all, as apart from Christ we are all sinners, even now living out our future condemnation. Yet Paul uses the very word about himself in <em><a href='B:520 7:24'>Rom 7:24</a></em>: “O wretched s:w. miserable man that I am…”, going on to exalt that Christ has saved him from that position, that misery, the misery of the condemned sinner. What is true of all humanity is true of Paul too- he repeatedly emphasizes his own personal share in the condemned human situation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:17'>Rom 3:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the way of peace have they not known</em>- Remember that Paul is writing to Christians who have known God’s ways, convicting them that they with him are, naturally speaking, condemned and the most wretched of sinners. “Peace” in Paul’s thought nearly always refers to peace with God through forgiveness and salvation in Christ. It is this which they have not known all the time they refuse to really believe that they have been forgiven and justified in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:18'>Rom 3:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There is no fear of God before their eyes</em>- Again, the language appropriate to the most hardened, atheistic blasphemer is being applied to all men, including Paul and all in Christ. This is Paul’s attempt to shock us into a deeper realization of how serious our position is as sinners. He has already convicted us of in essence being no better than sexual perverts in chapter 1; he has applied the language of atheists to us in <em><a href='B:520 1:28'>Rom 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a></em>. And now he as it were crowns it all by quoting a description of the very dregs of human society, who live with no fear of God, and applying it to us- we who fear His judgment and condemnation in our faithlessness that His grace is enough to save us. It’s a paradox- if we fear God’s judgment, not believing in His grace, then we are categorized along with those who have&nbsp;<em>no</em>&nbsp;fear of God.</p><p>Although I have argued that Paul is quoting from the LXX of Psalms 14 here in <em><a href='B:520 3:13-18'>Rom 3:13-18</a></em>, it would seem that this verse is also quoting <em><a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a></em>: “The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes”. This has a strange appropriacy. David says that the sin of the wicked is speaking within&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;David’s heart. This is the same spirit in which Paul is applying the descriptions of the very worst of humanity and admitting that in essence, this is what is going on within&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;heart and within the heart of every man. Truly, bad men only do what good men dream of.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now we know that whatever things the law said, it speaks to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped-&nbsp;</em>“The law” here seems to be used in the Rabbinic sense of ‘the OT scriptures’. There seems no sense if Paul is saying that the Law, the Scriptures he has just quoted, speak only to those “under the law”, and that therefore the whole world is condemned and guilty before God. I think we have to read in some ellipses here; the Message seems to get it right: “This makes it clear, doesn't it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us to whom these Scriptures were addressed in the first place”. This would be continuing the theme of <em><a href='B:520 2:2-3'>Rom 2:2-3</a></em> - that we are not to give in to the human tendency to assume that the consequences for all men because of sin will somehow not come upon us personally. See also on <em><a href='B:520 2:21'>Rom 2:21</a></em>.</p><p>Those verses Paul has just quoted, speaking of the worst of sinners, apply to us all (<em><a href='B:520 3:9-10'>Rom 3:9-10</a></em>). Paul realizes we are prone to respond that no, that’s not quite me… I’m not&nbsp;<em>that</em>&nbsp;bad. And so he has warned: “Whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;but to&nbsp;<em>us</em>” The Message. The intention is that “every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God”. The Greek for “stopped”, according to Vine, refers to “the effect of overwhelming evidence upon an accused party in court”. It is the speechlessness of the rejected of which the Lord speaks in <em><a href='B:470 22:12'>Mat 22:12</a></em>. Each of us should so know our sinfulness that we really feel as if we are standing at the judgment seat of Christ and have been condemned. We, along with all the world, “become guilty”, become sentenced Gk. before His judgment seat, right now. Only by having some sense of this will we be able to have any emotion of relief, joy, gratitude, praise, exaltation etc. at the wonder of having been declared right, accepted, by God’s grace in Christ.</p><p>We can however interpret “the law” as the Law of Moses. Its’ purpose was “so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (<em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>). Paul is quoting here from <em><a href='B:230 63:11'>Psa 63:11</a></em>: “the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped”. He’s reasoning that because we’re all sinners, we’re all liars- for untruth is the essence of sin. We are not being true to ourselves, to God, to His word, to our brethren… we profess covenant relationship with God, to be His people, and yet we fail to keep the terms of that covenant. And the Law of Moses convicted all God’s people of this, and in this way led them to the need for Christ. Yet <em><a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a></em> prophesied that the crucified Jesus would result in men shutting their mouths. The righteousness and perfection displayed there in one Man, the very human Lord Jesus, has the same effect upon us as the Law of Moses- we shut our mouths, convicted of sin:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And all the world-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em> (A:V:mg:) defines "all the world" as those "subject to the judgment of God" - which is only the responsible. The Lord Jesus took away the sin “of the world”, but the Jews died in their sins; “the world” whose sins were taken away is therefore the world of believers. "Every knee shall bow to me... every tongue shall confess... so then every one of us shall give account" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>) is another example- 'all men', 'every man' means 'every one of us the responsible'. "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men" (<em><a href='B:630 2:11'>Tit 2:11</a></em>)- certainly not to every human being that has ever lived; but to the "all men" of the new creation. For not "all men" will be saved. The Lord tasted death "for every man" (<em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>)- for every one who has a representative part in His sacrifice through baptism. Christ "reconciled the world" in that He obtained forgiveness for us (<em><a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a></em>)- we are "the world" which was reconciled, we are the "all things" purged by His blood (<em><a href='B:650 9:22'>Heb 9:22</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em> seems to make a difference between "the world" and "men", as if Paul is using "the world" here as meaning 'the world of believers'. The Lord was "a ransom for all" (<em><a href='B:610 2:6'>1Ti 2:6</a></em>), although it was only us, the redeemed, who were ransomed by Him out of sin's slavery (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:18'>1Pe 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:13'>Rom 8:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:3-4'>Rev 14:3-4</a></em>). The “all flesh” upon whom the Spirit was poured out in the first century was clearly enough a reference to those who believed and were baptized (<em><a href='B:510 2:17'>Act 2:17</a></em>).</p><p><em>May be brought under the judgment of God-&nbsp;</em>Sodom being a type of latter day events, it is not surprising that Scripture provides a wealth of detail concerning Sodom. The Genesis record summarizes what we glean from later revelation by saying that "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (<em><a href='B:10 13:13'>Gen 13:13</a></em>). "Before the Lord" recalls the earth being "corrupt before God" prior to the flood (<em><a href='B:10 6:11'>Gen 6:11</a></em>), another clear type of the last days. Indeed their sin being "before the Lord" may hint that Lot (or Abraham?) had preached God’s requirements to them, and therefore they were consciously disobeying Him. Thus <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em> speaks of the world becoming "guilty before God" (AV) by reason of their having the opportunity to know God’s word (cp. <em><a href='B:520 2:12-13'>Rom 2:12-13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because&nbsp;by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin</em>- “Because” is AV "Therefore". Because we are convicted sinners facing condemnation, no good works we do in other areas can change the outcome nor displace the sins we have already committed. ‘Just’ one sin brings death, as evidenced by the sin of Adam and Eve. “Guilty before God” in <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em> is reflected by “not justified in His sight” in <em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>. Because we are already standing dumbstruck and declared guilty before Him, we cannot be now declared right, it can’t all be made OK, by doing some other good works according to that same system of law parts of which we broke. If you murder your neighbour and stand in court condemned for it, you can’t put it all right by then doing the good deed of mowing your other neighbour’s lawn and taking his garbage to the dump. Indeed, trying to obey “the law” in one aspect isn’t going to declare us right when that same system of law condemns us. The only possible way to ‘get right’ would be to somehow get to the judge through another paradigm than obedience or disobedience to the law. And this is exactly what Paul is building up to. For the Judge of all the earth Himself thought up such a way. Seeing that “by the law is the knowledge of sin”, or as <em><a href='B:530 15:56'>1Co 15:56</a></em> puts it “the strength of sin is the law”, a way simply has to be found for our salvation which doesn’t depend upon our obedience or disobedience to the law.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:21'>Rom 3:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets- “</em>A righteousness of God” is a poor translation which is out of harmony with the context of <em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em> see there. The idea is that the justification of God, the way God sets a person right, without reference to the law, outside the paradigm of law- is in fact revealed (RV “has been manifested”, already) within the Old Testament prophets and the Law of Moses itself. The Old Testament scriptures are described with yet another legal term- they are right now witnessing in court, attesting. It’s as if we stood in the dock condemned and silent before God; but then the very law which we had broken and the Scriptures themselves take the witness box- and offer a way for us to be declared right.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:22'>Rom 3:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all them that believe. For there is no distinction-&nbsp;</em>God’s way of putting us right operates through our faith in RV, Gk. Jesus Christ, which Paul will later define more concretely in chapter 6 as baptism into His death and resurrection; for this is what constitutes in the first instance our believing into Christ. Whoever, any human being, who believes into Him will be counted right by God. And therefore “all”, “any”, who believe will be saved, there is no difference or distinction between them in terms of their being Jew or Gentile. The same word is used in this connection in <em><a href='B:520 10:12'>Rom 10:12</a></em>. 
On the level of translation, it should be noted that "faith in Jesus Christ" [a subjective genitive] is literally "the faith of Jesus Christ", and could as well mean 'On account of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ'. This may well be preferable, because the common reading appears to otherwise be a tautology: 'Through faith in Jesus Christ to all that them that have faith [in Jesus]'. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For all have sinned</em>- the context suggests that the enormity of our condemned position before God should mean that we do not uphold any human distinctions between us, e.g. on ethnic grounds. "All" here, as in :22, is referring in the context to 'Jew and Gentile, every human being'. Perceiving the enormity of our sin, how we are all in this together, and the wonder of God’s saving grace, ought to be the most powerful inspiration to unity known to humanity. The “all” who have sinned could refer to ‘all believers in Christ’ which is the subject of the preceding verse <em><a href='B:520 3:22'>Rom 3:22</a></em>; and <em><a href='B:520 3:24'>Rom 3:24</a></em> suggests that this same “all” are those who are justified freely by His grace.</p><p><em>And all fall short of the glory of God</em>- We have all already sinned aorist past tense and we do now present tense fall short of God’s glory, i:e. the complete perfection, the glory of God which was seen in the person of His Son (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>). God declared His glory to Moses in terms of His character (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a></em>). We fall short of that perfection of the Father’s character which was revealed in its fullness in His Son. <em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em> uses the same Greek word for “come / fall short” in warning lest any man “fail / fall short of the grace of God”. We come far short of God’s glory, but we are not to fall short of His grace whereby the righteousness of His Son, His glory, is counted to us and we are thereby declared right with Him. Jewish writings such as the Apocalypse of Moses 20:2 and 21:6 claimed that Adam “came short of the glory of God” by his sin in Eden; Paul is clearly alluding to this and is saying that Adam is everyman, we each are as Adam in Eden, with the tidal wave of realization breaking upon us as to the seriousness and eternal consequence of our so easily committed sin. It must be remembered that the Jewish writings frequently paralleled Adam with Israel N:T. Wright,&nbsp;<em>The Climax of the Covenant&nbsp;</em>(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) pp. 18-40 for documentation. But Paul is arguing that Adam is every single human being, not just Israel:&nbsp; For Adam was created well before Israel, and all humanity are his offspring, not just Israel. The universal experience of sinfulness therefore leads to the offer of God’s grace to all types of human being, not just Israel; and there will be an ensuing unity between those who believe in this grace, regardless of their ethnic background.</p><p>The Bible itself continually reflects a distinction in the mind of God between the person and the behaviour, the sin and the sinner. When we allow ourselves to be offended and to offend others, we have ceased to make that differentiation. We so easily equate the person and their behaviour, and thus they offend us. Consider how we are in the habit of saying: “We’re all sinners”. You may think I’m being pedantic, but <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em> says otherwise- that “all have sinned”. And there’s a slight and subtle difference. We have committed sin, and therefore we can be called sinners. But the Biblical focus is on the action committed rather than the branding of the person with a label.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:24'>Rom 3:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But are justified freely by His grace</em>- Gk. ‘without a cause / reason, as a gift’. We are justified, declared right in our court case, for no reason. This declaring right is therefore by the purest grace imaginable. The same word is used of how we should freely, without a human reason, preach the Gospel (<em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>); our receipt of such a “free” salvation should naturally inspire us to share it with others in the same spirit. Any form of charging for the Gospel, getting personal benefit or glory out of sharing it with others, is absolutely outlawed. The free nature of the grace we have received must be reflected in our sharing it with others in the same spirit; God’s giving to us has to be translated in our giving to others. Sharing the Gospel isn’t, therefore, an irksome duty, something we salve our conscience with, something we are asked to participate in by a church leadership team; but a natural personal outflowing of the free gift we have received.</p><p><em>Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus</em>- We are declared right here and now, we receive redemption in that our sins are forgiven (<em><a href='B:560 1:7'>Eph 1:7</a></em>); but redemption is in fact a process, culminating in the redemption of our body at the return of Christ, the final change from mortality to immortality in a corporeal, literal sense (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>), in “the day of redemption” (<em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whom God set forth</em>&nbsp;-“Whom God put forward as a place of atonement by his blood” (NRSV margin) seems to be the right sense. The reference is to the mercy seat, not to the sacrificed animal. Vincent comments: “The word is used by Herodotus of exposing corpses (v. 8); by Thucydides of exposing the bones of the dead (ii. 34)”. The sense of public display is picked up later in the verse in the word “declare”. Crucifixion is by its very nature a public event. There was once a doctor in Paraguay who spoke out against human rights abuses. Local police took their revenge by torturing his teenage son to death. The local people wanted to stage a huge protest march, but the father disallowed them and chose another means of protest. At the funeral, the father displayed his son’s body as it was when retrieved from jail- naked, scarred from electric shocks, cigarette burns and beatings. And the body was displayed not in a coffin but on the blood-soaked prison mattress. This public display of a body was the most powerful witness and incitement possible. And the public nature of the display of God’s tortured son was for the same basic reason. “He was manifested, that he might put sins away" (<em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em>) could suggest that in His atoning death, ‘He’ was manifested. There God set forth Jesus in His blood, for all to see and respond to (<em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em> Gk:). There the real essence of Jesus was publicly shown forth. And there we come to know what love is (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>).</p><p><em>To be a propitiation</em>- The Greek word doesn’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to specifically mean “mercy seat” / atonement cover, with reference to the ark, even though this is how it is translated in Hebrews 9:5 and how it is used in the LXX. The idea is essentially a place of atonement or the atonement victim, the sacrificed animal. Instead of that place of blood sprinkling, obscurely hidden away on the top of the atonement cover [on the ark of the covenant within the Most Holy Place which the High Priest saw only once per year], God through the cross set forth publicly, He declared, the place of atonement to be in the very publicly displayed blood of His Son. The public nature of crucifixion therefore was appropriate. The Son of Man had to be, therefore, “lifted up” (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>) so that He could and can be believed in. <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em> states that the Lord in His death was "set forth to be a propitiation". Graham Jackman comments: "Though the primary meaning of the word ‘set forth’ (<em>protithemi</em>) seems to be that of ‘determining’ or ‘purposing’, another sense, albeit not in the New Testament, is said to be that of exposing the bodies of the dead to public view, as in a lying in state". See on <em><a href='B:480 15:29'>Mar 15:29</a></em>. We note too that hilasterion is used in a passage in 4 Maccabees 17:21,22, which is so similar that Paul is surely alluding to it. The blood of the seven slain, martyred brothers is seen as a hilasterion for the sins of Israel: "Through the blood of those righteous men and their propitiatory death [hilasterion], the Divine providence delivered Israel". Writing as Paul was against a background of Jewish nationalism and appeal to their Maccabean heroes, Paul is making the point that it is the blood of Jesus, and not the blood of martyred Jewish rebels, which alone can atone for Israel's sin. We can take the lesson that nothing else at all can really deal with our sin. Not self help, "love yourself" philosophy, not association with some current of historical or national identity... only the blood of Jesus. </p><p><em>Through faith in his blood, to show His righteousness in the passing over of the sins done previously</em>- See on “set forth”. But the word also carries the sense of setting forth evidence, proof.   See on “set forth”. But the word also carries the sense of setting forth evidence, proof. The legal flavour could possibly suggest that the blood of Christ, His death upon the cross, is brought forth as a proof in the court case that actually, we really have been declared in the right. Whilst Christ’s death was multifactorial, it would be true to say that God could have saved us any way He chose, without being forced, as it were, to have a begotten Son who was publicly crucified. Maybe He did this because He so wishes us to believe, and He wanted to commend His love in all its depth and costliness as publicly as possible, so that we would indeed perceive and believe it. "Through faith in his blood" certainly invites us to focus upon His blood, and the nature of the communion meeting encourages us in that. “God has publicly displayed Christ as a propitiation in his [Christ’s] blood”. But it was not the red liquid of itself of course, but the perfect life represented by it. And yet because we are human, we need some visual symbol upon which to focus. We have this in the communion wine. </p><p>God’s method of declaring us right deals with the sins “that are past”, for which we stand condemned before His judgment seat with no way to make amends; and also “at this time” (<em><a href='B:520 3:26'>Rom 3:26</a></em>), right now, we are declared righteous by status, declared in the right, if we are believers into Jesus.</p><p><em>In the forbearance of God</em>- We shall all be saved by the forbearance of God, hence we should not deny to others the forbearance of God. Hence in <em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em> the same word is used, in stating that those who condemn their brethren are despising the forbearance of God, in that they are assuming that His forbearance can’t apply to the person whom they have condemned. If we are saved by God’s gracious forbearance, it’s not for us to deny this to another.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:26'>Rom 3:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the showing of His righteousness at this present time</em>- See on <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>. As discussed below, His justice / righteousness is displayed by forgiving by grace. But this requires a radical redefinition of "justice" far away from any sense of punitive justice, whereby justice is 'done' through punishment. For the wages of sin is eternal death. Justice has to be redefined, and it is, in the cross. Just as "love" was given a whole new dimension when we were given the "new commandment" to love as Christ loved us. The otherwise colourless word agape was loaded with a radically new significance, just as "justice" and "atonement" are now to be radically redefined.   </p><p><em>That He might Himself be just</em>- the whole process of justifying sinners is achieved without infringing upon the justice and integrity of God. Quite how… isn’t explained (although I am aware of many attempts to explain it, but they all seem to fail). I think we are asked to accept this on faith.</p><p><em>And the justifier</em>- God’s plan of declaring us right takes care of our past sins (<em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>), right now “at this time” declares us right, and will justify us at the coming day of judgment:&nbsp;</p><p>The idea is that in our court hearing, we are declared 'just' or 'right'. We receive not only the word of pardon from the judge of all, but we are actually rehabilitated and declared 'right'. This is the wonder of it all; that this is also done in an ultimately 'right' or 'just' way. And yet all that is within us cries out that pardon is one thing, but sinners being declared 'just' is far from 'just' and right. But here we are deeply challenged- our view of rightness, of justice, must crumble beneath this new justice which is made possible through the never before experienced power of God's love toward us in Jesus. Never did love and atonement come to such term- that the concept of justice itself should be reframed and redefined. Forgiveness likewise is redefined. We have been not only forgiven, but so deeply cleansd that we are now declared right. </p><p>All this talk about being justly justified is really a way of saying that the cleansing work of Jesus is more powerful than any atonement or forgiveness known to man. Human forgiveness of each other cannot erase guilt, nor can it of itself declare the guilty to be spotlessly innocent. But the forgiveness of God through Jesus can do this. It is to such an extent that the sinner is justly declared just and righteous, despite being a sinner. We are not just 'let off'. We are rehabilitated and justified as just men, when we were sinners and deeply guilty. This is why Paul at this point in Romans continually argues that it is the blood of Jesus which makes all this possible. He has stated in :25 that the blood of Jesus is publically exhibited in the court room as evidence, a legal exhibit, of our justification. No human court would ever accept that. But here we have a radical redefinition of justice and evidence, to the point that the judge imputes His own righteousness to the accused. And of course the judge is not impartial- the accused has sinned against the judge personally, for all sin is ultimately against God. There can therefore be no impartial legal process. God is involved at all points.</p><p> Of him that has faith in Jesus- "Faith in Jesus" is hardly a legal basis upon which to justify and rehabilitate a convicted criminal. But that's how things work in God's court. And for us, that is all the ultimately matters. The non-Christian will understandably complain. All this makes no sense. How can a man who abused children be counted righteous and enthused about? No justice, in a human sense, appears to have been done. But then human 'justice' is flawed. As hurt people leave a court room and are interviewed about their feelings concerning their abuser, they at times will say they are satisfied that justice has been done and seen to be done. But whilst that may provide a little cosmetic comfort, the damage has still been done, and the clock cannot be turned back. Human justice still fails to address the real issues. Admittedly, it is going to be hard for a non-Christian to accept that their abuser is now seen by God as just because of "faith in Jesus". And here we are down to the simple reality that the believer in Christ lives in a different culture, speaking another language and understanding things totally differently... to the unbeliever. It's a difference as radical as that between light and darkness. That's why believers should only marry believers. The gap in thought and culture is so chasmic and total. </p><p>
It’s rare for Paul to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as simply “Jesus” with no title. Perhaps he is trying to bring out the simplicity of it all- that by believing in the very human Jesus, a man of our nature with one of the commonest names amongst first century Palestinian Jews, i.e. ‘Jesus’, we really can be declared right before God. The style of :24-26 is such that it has been suggested that this is an early Christian formula which was well known amongst the Christians. This would explain why Paul uncharacteristically refers to "Jesus" rather than "the Lord Jesus" as he usually does. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:27'>Rom 3:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Where then is the glorying? It is excluded</em>- The Jewish boasting about obedience to the Mosaic Law of <em><a href='B:520 2:17'>Rom 2:17</a></em>. If we are saved by grace, any feelings of superiority are excluded. “It is excluded” is a mild way of translating the aorist- the sense is that boasting has once for all been cut off, ended, excluded; by the death of Christ, and by that moment when we believed into Christ, and stood declared righteous before the judgment seat of Christ. Paul must refer to boasting in a wrong sense, a boasting in our works and obedience; for he uses the word quite often in his letters of his boasting of God’s grace, and of the faithfulness of other brethren which had been inspired by that grace (e.g. <em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:14'>2Co 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:24'>2Co 8:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:4'>2Co 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:10'>2Co 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:17'>2Co 11:17</a></em>).</p><p><em>By what manner of law? Of works?</em>- Boasting in the sense of feeling superior to others hasn’t been excluded by law, i:e. it’s not that we no longer boast because there’s a law that says ‘You shall not boast’. It has been cut off by the law or principle of salvation by faith rather than works. This simple reality, that we really are saved, not by works but by faith in God’s grace through Jesus, is so powerful that it quite naturally excludes boasting.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:28'>Rom 3:28</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 2:26'>Rom 2:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>We reckon&nbsp;therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law</em>- The legal sense of the word refers to the summing up of a court case. Here again, Paul assumes the role of judge. The summary of the case is that a man is declared right by God on account of his faith in God’s grace and the blood of Christ. This is “without”, quite apart from, any acts of obedience to law.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:29'>Rom 3:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also</em>- Paul brings out the practical implications of the doctrine of justification by faith in God’s grace. Seeing that all men are sinners, and the basis of salvation is our faith in His grace through the blood of Christ- there can be no basic division between believers. God becomes “the God” of those He has saved, that seems to be implication- and so He isn’t the God of only the Jews.</p><p>The Roman concept of&nbsp;<em>religio</em>&nbsp;allowed each subject nation to have their own gods, so long as the cult of the emperor was also worshipped. But <em><a href='B:520 3:29'>Rom 3:29</a></em> states that the God of Israel was the one God of the Gentiles too. This is in sharp distinction to the way the Romans thought of the god of the Jews as just another national deity. Caesar was king of many subject kings, Lord of many conquered and inferior lords. In this we see the radical challenge of <em><a href='B:610 6:15-16'>1Ti 6:15-16</a></em>: that Jesus Christ is the&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;potentate, the Lord of Lords, the King of all Kings:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Since God is one</em>- The belief which the Jews held most dear; they felt that their monotheism divided them from the rest of the world. But it is the fact that there’s only one God which binds together Jew and Gentile believers in Christ; for that one God justifies each human being on the same basis. The seriousness of our personal positions and the wonder of His saving grace is such that any ethnic difference between us becomes irrelevant:&nbsp;</p><p>That God is one is not just a numerical description. If there is only one God, He therefore demands our&nbsp;<em>all</em>. Because He is the One God, He demands all our worship; and because He is One, He therefore treats all His people the same, regardless, e.g., of their nationality (<em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em>). All true worshippers of the one God, whether Jew or Gentile, are united in that the one God offers salvation to them on the same basis. The fact there is only one Lord Jesus implies the same for Him (<em><a href='B:520 10:12'>Rom 10:12</a></em>). Paul saw these implications in the doctrine of the unity of God. But that doctrine needs reflecting on before we come to grasp these conclusions.<br/>Paul, writing to those who thought they believed in the unity of God, had to remind them that this simple fact implies the need for unity amongst us His children, seeing He treats us all equally as a truly good Father: " If so be that God is one... he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and likewise the uncircumcision through faith" (<em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em> RV). Unity amongst us is inspired by the fact that God seeks to be one with us, exactly because He is Himself 'unity', one in Himself. The Rabbis have always been at pains to point out the somewhat unusual grammar in the record of creation in Genesis 1, which literally translated reads: "One day... a second day... a third day", rather than 'One day... two days... three days', as we'd expect if 'Day one' solely referred to 'firstness' in terms of time. "The first day" (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em>) therefore means more strictly 'the day of unity', in that it refers to how the one God sought unity with earth. "<em>Yom ehad,&nbsp;</em>one day, really means the day which God desired to be&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;with man... the unity of God is a concern for the unity of the world".</p><p><em>He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by faith</em>- The Greek words&nbsp;<em>ek</em>&nbsp;“by” and&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;faith AV “through” may simply be being used in parallel, meaning effectively the same thing, as they are in <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>. “The circumcision” refers to Jewish Christians who believed; “the uncircumcision” is perhaps also a technical term, in this context, for believing Christian Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:31'>Rom 3:31</a></em><em>Do we then make the law of no effect through faith? God forbid. No, we establish the law</em>- Consider where the same word is used in the context of showing that the Law has indeed been ‘made void’ or done away: <em><a href='B:520 7:2'>Rom 7:2</a></em>, we are “loosed” from the Law, “delivered from the Law” (<em><a href='B:520 7:6'>Rom 7:6</a></em>), the Law was “done away” (<em><a href='B:540 3:11'>2Co 3:11</a></em>), “abolished” (<em><a href='B:540 3:13'>2Co 3:13</a></em>), “done away” (<em><a href='B:540 3:14'>2Co 3:14</a></em>), “abolished… the law of commandments” (<em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em>). Clearly enough, the Law is indeed “made void”- by the death of Christ. The emphasis should therefore be on the fact that it is not&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;(“we”), who made it void. We as lawbreakers have no right to simply abrogate Divine Law, to void it because we broke it and we want to avoid the consequences. It can only be done by the Divine lawmaker and His Son. Our faith in Him and His saving grace doesn’t mean that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;make the law void; we by our sinfulness and acceptance of it do in fact establish or ‘make to stand’ Divine law. Paul is anticipating the objections of his Jewish audience- that he was teaching that sinners could merely abrogate the Law they had broken. We sense how on the back foot Paul was- his critics must have been persistent, and his stress level must have been very high by constantly seeking to anticipate their objections and parry them did he actually need to have done this?. By believing in God’s grace in Christ and not trying to get justification from keeping the Law of Moses, we are in a strange way fulfilling the “righteousness of the law” (<em><a href='B:520 8:4'>Rom 8:4</a></em>). It may be that Paul here is using “law” as a reference to the Old Testament scriptures generally, which he has been quoting so freely to prove his point (he uses “law” like this in <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:21'>Rom 3:21</a></em>; although “law” in the first half of <em><a href='B:520 3:31'>Rom 3:31</a></em> seems to refer to the Mosaic Law specifically):&nbsp;</p><p>"Think not that I am come to destroy (“to make void”, Darby's Translation) the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (<em><a href='B:470 5:17'>Mat 5:17</a></em>) has some kind of unconscious, hard to define link with <em><a href='B:520 3:31'>Rom 3:31</a></em>: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law". The Greek words for "destroy" and "make void" are different; yet the similarity of phrasing and reasoning is so similar. I can't pass this off as chance, yet neither can I say there is a conscious allusion here. There is, therefore, what I will call an 'unconscious link' here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:1'>Rom 4:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What then shall we say-&nbsp;</em>Paul’s frequent “What then shall we say to this?” occurs at least 5 times in Romans alone (<em><a href='B:520 4:1'>Rom 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:1'>Rom 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:7'>Rom 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:14'>Rom 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:30'>Rom 9:30</a></em>)- and this is the classic phrase used by Jewish teachers at the end of presenting their argument to their students. Seeing then that Paul writes in a rabbinic way, as if He is giving a stream of&nbsp;<em>Midrash</em>&nbsp;on earlier, familiar writings e.g. the words of Jesus or the Old Testament, we should be looking for how he may quote or allude to just a word or two from the Lord, and weave an interpretation around them.</p><p><em>About Abraham our forefather-&nbsp;</em>Paul was writing to Jewish and Gentile believers. Yet he speaks of “our” father as if he’s writing mainly to Jews here- but see on <em><a href='B:520 4:11'>Rom 4:11</a></em>. Alternatively, it could be that Paul in wishing to be as personal as possible in addressing his readers is referring to Abraham as “our father” in the sense that he personally was Jewish. Paul in this section is now exemplifying what he has taught so far in Romans from the example of Abraham. This whole ‘Abraham’ section is written in the style of Rabbinic Midrash, with <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em> as the verse being expounded. Paul’s point is that Jewish and Gentile believers can trace themselves back to Abraham because the family likeness is in faith not circumcision. Jewish proselytes were forbidden to call Abraham “our father” (C:K. Barrett,&nbsp;<em>From First Adam to Last</em>&nbsp;(New York: Scribner’s, 1962) p. 31:):&nbsp;</p><p><em>According to the flesh</em>- The same Greek phrase is used five times in Romans 8 in the negative sense of “according to the flesh”. The suggestion may be that walking according to the flesh rather than the Spirit was related to placing meaning on the fact that Abraham was a fleshly ancestor. Being or emphasizing ones’ Jewishness was therefore related to&nbsp;<em>un</em>spirituality, whereas the Jews thought that being Jewish was a sign of spirituality. Paul’s style was so radical, but then so are the demands of the grace which has saved us.</p><p><em>Hath found&nbsp;</em>KJV- In the context of <em><a href='B:520 3:27-28'>Rom 3:27-28</a></em>, what has he found to boast / glory about? The answer is- nothing, according to his works.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:2'>Rom 4:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If Abraham was justified by works</em>- As the Jews said he was. Jubilees 23:10: “Abraham was perfect in all his deeds with the Lord, and well pleasing in righteousness”. Indeed some of the Jewish writings claimed Abraham never sinned:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He has something to boast about</em>- Alluding to <em>Sir_44:19</em>, which says about Abraham in the context of his good works: “None has been found like him in glory”. This allusion to and deconstruction of other writings is something which Paul does quite often- and probably even more frequently, if we had access to more first century texts from which to perceive his allusions. Significantly, Sirach is in the Apocrypha, but Paul evidently disagrees with the book and shows it teaches wrongly about Abraham. This would possibly confirm the Protestant tradition of rejecting the Apocryphal books as inspired, although the recorded words of men in the canonical books are also of course quoted and deconstructed. But the quotation from Sirach is from the actual words of Ben Sira, which are claimed to be directly inspired.</p><p><em>But not before God</em>- Before the judgment throne of God, of which Paul has been speaking in chapter 3, especially <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>. He demonstrated there that all humanity, Abraham included,&nbsp; stand shamed and speechless before God. The idea that Abraham was sinless is therefore disputed strongly by Paul. The Greek phrase “before God” occurs several times in Romans. Because we are justified by faith, we have peace “before God” AV “with God”, <em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>. The practical section of Romans brings out what we ought to do, therefore, with that position- Paul prayed for Israel “before God” (AV “to God”, <em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em>), and he urges the believers to likewise pray “before God” (AV “to God”, <em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>). If we are justified, declared right before God by grace, then as we stand there in His presence with His gracious acceptance, we ought to from that place beg His mercy for others. This is the practical outcome of the courtroom parable. We stand there accepted, with the judge lovingly smiling at us in gracious acceptance, with nothing now laid to our charge, declared right with God; and what should we then do? We who have peace before God should whilst before God, beg Him for mercy upon others. Job is really a working model for us in all this. He said the&nbsp;<em>wrong</em>&nbsp;things about God, as Elihu points out on God’s behalf; and yet before God’s awesome throne he was declared right, as if he had spoken what was right; and then he prays for his friends.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:3'>Rom 4:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What did the Scripture say::?</em>- The Bible as a living word continues to speak with us, in part of an ongoing dialogue between God and man.</p><p><em>And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness</em>- The Greek word for “counted” occurs very often in this section. Significantly, <em><a href='B:520 3:28'>Rom 3:28</a></em> says that we are to conclude s:w. “count” that we are justified by faith rather than works. We are to view ourselves, impute to ourselves, as God does. His view of us is to be our view of ourselves. The Septuagint uses this word with regard to sacrifices symbolic of Christ’s death on the cross being “reckoned” to a person (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:27'>Num 18:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:30'>Num 18:30</a></em>); and of Shimei asking David not to “reckon” his guilt to him, to judge him not according to the obvious facts of the case (<em><a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a></em>). The Old Testament is at pains to stress that Yahweh will&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;justify the guilty (<em><a href='B:20 23:7'>Exo 23:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:23'>Isa 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a></em>). This is where the unique significance of Jesus comes in. Because of&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, His death and our faith in it, our being in Him, God can justify the wicked in that they have died with Christ in baptism (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>), they are no longer, they are only “in Christ”, for them “to live is Christ”. They are counted as in Him, and in this way sinners end up justified.</p><p>Abraham's weakness at the time of the Genesis 15 promises is perhaps behind how Paul interprets the star-gazing incident in <em><a href='B:520 4:3-5'>Rom 4:3-5</a></em>. He is answering the Jewish idea that Abraham never sinned (see on <em><a href='B:520 4:2'>Rom 4:2</a></em>). He quotes the incident, and God’s counting of righteousness to Abraham, as proof that a man with no "works", nothing to glory before God with, can believe in God to "justify the ungodly", and thereby be counted righteous. Understanding Abraham's mood as revealed in <em><a href='B:10 15:1-4'>Gen 15:1-4</a></em> certainly helps us see the relevance of all this to Abraham. And it helps us see Abraham more realistically as the father of us all... and not some Sunday School hero, well beyond our realistic emulation. No longer need we think "Abraham? Oh, yeah, Abraham... faith... wow. But me... nah. I'm not Abraham...". He's for real, truly our example, a realistic hero whom we can cheer and pledge to follow. For Abraham is an example to us of God’s grace to man, and a man in all his weakness and struggle with God accepting it and believing it, even when he is "<em>un</em>godly", rather than a picture of a white-faced placid saint with unswerving faith:&nbsp;<br/>"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God. For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness" (<em><a href='B:520 4:1-5'>Rom 4:1-5</a></em>).</p><p>It is in the very struggle for faith that we have that we show ourselves to have the family characteristic of Abraham. That moment when the "ungodly", doubting, bitter Abraham believed God’s promise is to be as it were our icon, the picture we rise up to: "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham" (<em><a href='B:550 3:6-7'>Gal 3:6-7</a></em>):&nbsp;The struggle within Abraham at the time is brought out by Paul in <em><a href='B:520 4:18-24'>Rom 4:18-24</a></em>, which seems to be a kind of psychological commentary upon the state of Abraham's mind as he stood there looking at the stars in the presence of God / an Angel ("before him God whom he believed", <em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>): "Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be. And without being weakened in faith he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was able also to perform. Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead".</p><p>It may be that Abraham realised his own spiritual weakness at this time, if we follow Paul's argument in <em><a href='B:520 4:3'>Rom 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>: "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory... (but) Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness... to him (alluding to Abraham) that worketh not, but believeth (as did Abraham) on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (like Abraham's) is counted for righteousness". Surely this suggests that Abraham felt&nbsp;<em>ungodly</em>&nbsp;at the time, unworthy of this great promise, recognizing he only had moments of faith, and yet he believed that although he was ungodly, God would justify him and give him the promise, and therefore he was counted as righteous and worthy of the promise. There is certainly the implication of some kind of forgiveness being granted Abraham at the time of his belief in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>; righteousness was imputed to him, which is tantamount to saying that his ungodliness was covered. In this context, Paul goes straight on to say that the same principles operated in the forgiveness of David for his sin with Bathsheba:&nbsp; It would actually appear that Paul is writing here, as he often does, with his eye on deconstructing popular Jewish views at the time. Their view of Abraham was that he was perfect, "Godly" in the extreme- and Paul's point is that actually he was not, he was "ungodly", but counted righteous not by his acts but by his faith:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now to him that works</em>- the same word for “works” is used in <em><a href='B:470 25:16'>Mat 25:16</a></em>, where we are to trade or ‘work’ with our talents and will be judged for the quality of that working. The point surely is that we will be saved by grace, not works; and yet our works in response to that grace will be judged, and will determine the nature of the eternity, the salvation, which we enjoy- reigning over 10 or five or two cities etc. By a sublime paradox, the “work” we are to do is to believe in Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:28-30'>Joh 6:28-30</a></em>). So here in <em><a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a></em> we have to again read in an ellipsis: “He that trusts in works for his justification”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt</em>- The only other time the word occurs in the New Testament is in the request for our debts i:e. sins to be forgiven (<em><a href='B:470 6:12'>Mat 6:12</a></em>). We are in debt to God, to suggest He is in debt to us is bizarre- as bizarre as thinking that we can be justified by our works rather than His grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But to him that works not, but believes in Him</em>- The content of Abraham’s faith was in the promise just given him that he would have a great descendant, the Lord Jesus, who would become many. The content of our faith in Christ which results in justification is the same. Note that Abraham wasn’t presented with a complex theology of Christ which he had to say “yes” to. He was presented with very simple facts concerning Jesus- that He would be the future descendant of Abraham, and through connection with Him, blessing would be received and eternal inheritance of the earth. This is the same basic content of the faith in Christ which we are asked to have.</p><p><em>That justifies the ungodly</em>- Abraham, whom the Jews argued was sinless and Godly because of his works (see on <em><a href='B:520 4:2'>Rom 4:2</a></em>). The word is used about gross sinners (e.g. <em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:9'>1Ti 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a></em>). Again, Paul is using extreme language to demonstrate how serious is sin; a man like Abraham whom we would consider a Godly man was in fact ungodly- because he was a sinner.</p><p><em>His faith is reckoned for righteousness</em>- Paul comments that he persecuted the Christian church "zealously" (<em><a href='B:570 3:6'>Phi 3:6</a></em>). He was alluding to the way that Phinehas is described as 'zealous' for the way in which he murdered an apostate Jew together with a Gentile who was leading him to sin (Numbers 25). Note that the Jews in Palestine had no power to give anyone the death sentence, as witnessed not only by the record of the trial of Jesus but Josephus too (<em>Antiquities</em>&nbsp;20:202;&nbsp;<em>BJ</em>&nbsp;2:117; 6:302). Paul was a criminal murderer; and he had justified it by saying that he was the 1st Century Phinehas. <em><a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a></em> had commented upon the murder performed by Phinehas, that his zeal "was accounted to him for righteousness". This sets the background for the converted Paul's huge emphasis upon the fact that&nbsp;<em>faith</em>&nbsp;in Jesus is what is "reckoned for righteousness", and it is in&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;way that God "justifies the unGodly" (<em><a href='B:520 4:3-5'>Rom 4:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:6'>Gal 3:6</a></em>). Paul is inviting us to see ourselves as him- passionately obsessed with going about our justification the&nbsp;<em>wrong</em>&nbsp;way, and having to come to the&nbsp;<em>huge</em>&nbsp;realization that righteousness is<em>&nbsp;imputed</em>&nbsp;to us by our faith in the work of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a></em><em>&nbsp;Even as David pronounces blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness</em>- The Greek idea is of ‘beatification’, making a man into a saint. This exalted language, the kind of thing the Rabbis did only for stellar examples of spirituality like Abraham and David, is actually the process which happens to every man who believes in Christ:&nbsp;</p><p>I’ve often asked myself&nbsp;<em>how&nbsp;</em>exactly the Mosaic Law led people to Christ. Was it not that they were convicted by it of guilt, and cried out for a Saviour? “The law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that… grace might reign… unto eternal life by Jesus” (<em><a href='B:520 5:20-21'>Rom 5:20-21</a></em>). This was the purpose of the Law. And thus Paul quotes David’s rejoicing in the righteousness imputed to him when he had sinned and had no works left to do- and changes the pronoun from “he” to “they” (<em><a href='B:520 4:6-8'>Rom 4:6-8</a></em>). David’s personal experience became typical of that of each of us. It was&nbsp;<em>through</em>&nbsp;the experience of that wretched and hopeless position that David and all believers come to know the true ‘blessedness’ of imputed righteousness and sin forgiven by grace. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven" (<em><a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a></em>), David wrote, after experiencing God’s mercy in the matter of Bathsheba. But Paul sees this verse as David describing "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works" (<em><a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a></em>). Each of us are in need of a like justification; therefore we find ourselves in David’s position. The Spirit changes <em><a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a></em> ("Blessed is&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;whose transgression is forgiven") to "Blessed are&nbsp;<em>they</em>" (<em><a href='B:520 4:7'>Rom 4:7</a></em>) to make the same point.</p><p><em>Apart from works, saying</em>- In that there was no defined sacrifice for David to offer to atone for the murder of Uriah and adultery. We stand speechless and defenceless before the judgment seat of God in the same way. Again we see Paul urging us to accept the depth of our sinfulness- the position of a man guilty of adultery and murder is that of each of us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:7'>Rom 4:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered</em>- This is perhaps the thread of connection between the examples of Abraham and David. Abraham believed God’s promise of blessing (which the New Testament interprets as forgiveness and salvation, e.g. <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>); he received the blessing for no works he had done, but simply because he believed. David likewise received a similar blessing- just because he believed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:8'>Rom 4:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Blessed is the man</em>- Connects with “blessed are&nbsp;<em>they</em>” (<em><a href='B:520 4:7'>Rom 4:7</a></em>). David becomes representative of us all.</p><p><em>To whom the Lord will not count sin</em>- A double negative in the Greek, He absolutely will not count us as sinners</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:9'>Rom 4:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say, to Abraham his faith was counted as righteousness</em>- Is paralleled with “righteousness” in the second half of the verse. Paul’s reasoning is that Abraham was uncircumcised when he received this blessing of righteousness, therefore circumcision is irrelevant. But the implication is that Abraham received the blessing, the righteous standing, immediately upon his belief, right there and then. Because the crux of the argument is that he received these things whilst uncircumcised. We therefore should be able to rejoice here and now that we right now are counted righteous before God’s judgment throne.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:10'>Rom 4:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>How then was it counted? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision-&nbsp;</em>The question is how, and not when. How, in what manner was righteousness reckoned- obviously not thanks to circumcision.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:11'>Rom 4:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he received the sign of circumcision-&nbsp;</em>Circumcision was a sign given as a testament or seal to the faith Abraham had before he was circumcised, the faith which justified and saved him. Circumcision itself, therefore, was nothing to do with his justification. Paul appears to be labouring his points somewhat, but he was up against a colossally strong Jewish mindset that considered circumcision itself to be what saves and defines a person as God’s. The “seal” which we now have is in our foreheads, <em><a href='B:730 9:4'>Rev 9:4</a></em>, a mental attitude, a seal stamped within our hearts by God’s Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>); as such it is invisible, an internal condition rather than an external mark in the flesh. But what exactly is it? Surely if we believe the good news which Paul has been explaining, that we stand ashamed and condemned before God’s judgment seat but are then declared righteous, justified and saved, standing there in the very presence of God clean and justified- this will make an indelible psychological mark upon the person who believes this. ‘Once saved always saved’ is too primitive a teaching- we can fall from grace. But all the same, if we have really and truly experienced this great salvation, we have the mark of it, the seal of it in our hearts, and it will become evident in our thinking and speaking and behaviour in this world. Whatever we do subsequently with this grace, our experience&nbsp;of standing justified before God will leave as I put it, an indelible psychological mark upon us. This is what I suggest is the sealing of which the New Testament speaks. And it has to be inevitably observed that many who bear the name of Christ would appear by the way they reason and act to simply not have that indelible psychological mark upon them. Which is the value of Romans, working through the mechanics of salvation in this dense, intense manner, to bring us to the point where we too are convicted, converted and can stand rejoicing “before God”, declared right.</p><p>Another angle on this is that the circumcision which we receive is to be connected with baptism (<em><a href='B:580 2:11-15'>Col 2:11-15</a></em>). The cutting off of the flesh is therefore achieved by Christ operating directly on our hearts, rather than by the midwife’s knife. In this case, baptism likewise would be a “seal” upon our faith in God’s righteousness being counted to us in Christ; and it is this faith which is the essence of our salvation. However, Romans 6 seems to place baptism as more than a mere piece of physical symbolism of the same value as circumcision; it is the means by which a believer believes into Christ and thus becomes “in Christ”, thereby having His righteousness counted to them. 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes and other early Christian writings likewise speak of baptism as the “seal” upon Christian faith.</p><p><em>A seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be counted to them also</em>- Because Abraham is their spiritual father. Here we see the power of example. Abraham inspires our faith, and so the amazing grace of righteousness being counted to us happens, in one sense, because of him- because he opened the paradigm, of being declared right before God just because he believed. The crucial family likeness in the Abraham family is therefore faith, not marks in the flesh placed on the male members of the tribe. This of course was blasphemy for the Jews to hear… In this sense therefore, Abraham was father of “all” the believers in Rome, both Jew and Gentile. Connection to him should therefore create unity between ethnic groups rather than exclusivity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:12'>Rom 4:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the father of circumcision to those who are not only of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had whilst he was uncircumcised</em>- See on <em><a href='B:520 4:1'>Rom 4:1</a></em>. Walking in the steps of Abraham suggests that his journey of faith from Ur to Haran to Canaan becomes typical of the walk of every single believer towards salvation in the Kingdom, a journey only motivated by our faith that we will be there, that we are declared right before God in Christ. Abraham walked by faith- but the content of that faith, Paul is arguing, was faith in justification by God. Likewise we will not get very far in our walk to the Kingdom if we fail to believe that we are already right now justified and right with God; we aren’t walking to judgment day in the vague hope that we will inherit the Kingdom, walking to the Kingdom to see if we shall enter into it. We walk Gk. ‘march’ in faith, faith that we are already declared right before God, that ours is the Kingdom, and we are walking there to obtain it, just as Abraham took his steps toward Canaan not to just have a look at it and see if he would obtain it, but rather believing that it already was his. The Greek word “steps” is in fact a form of the word ‘arrival’; we are walking to the Kingdom and yet we have in a sense arrived there.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 4:11-12'>Rom 4:11-12</a></em>. If you have real faith, you'll be like Zacchaeus. You'll have his determination, his unashamedness to come out in the open for Christ your Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the promise to Abraham and his seed</em>- The Greek really means an announcement. It’s not a vague possibility, the ‘promises’ to Abraham were an announcement that he would inherit the Kingdom. The promise Paul refers to was given to Abraham because of,&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, on account of, his being declared right with God by faith in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em>. Perhaps Paul specifically has in mind the promise of <em><a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a></em>. Having been declared right with God, Abraham was then promised that he personally would be heir of the world- the implications of being right with God, counted righteous, were thereby fleshed out and given some more tangible, material, concrete form. He would therefore live for ever, because he was right with God; and the arena of that eternity would be “the world”.</p><p><em>That he should be heir of the world, did not come through the law- but through the righteousness of faith</em>- Abraham was only explicitly promised the land of Canaan, not the entire planet. Perhaps Paul is interpreting the promises that his seed would comprise “many nations” and that he would bring blessing on “all the peoples of the earth” (<em><a href='B:10 12:2-3'>Gen 12:2-3</a></em> etc:). In this sense, they would become his, and he would thereby inherit them. Thus <em><a href='B:290 55:3-5'>Isa 55:3-5</a></em> likewise implies that Abraham’s promised inheritance was therefore not only the land of Canaan but by implication, the whole planet.</p><p>God promised Abraham a very specific inheritance in Canaan. And yet this promise seems to be interpreted in later Scripture as referring to the&nbsp;<em>world-wide</em>&nbsp;Kingdom which will be established at the second coming (e.g. <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> speaks of how Abraham was promised that he would inherit the world; Psalms 72 and other familiar prophecies speak of a world-wide Messianic Kingdom, based on the promises to Abraham). One possible explanation is found in Psalms 2, where the Father seems to encourage the Son to ask of Him "the&nbsp;<em>heathen</em>&nbsp;i:e:, not just the Jews for thine inheritance, and the&nbsp;<em>uttermost parts of the earth</em>&nbsp;not just the land of promise for thy possession" (<em><a href='B:230 2:8'>Psa 2:8</a></em>). Could it be that due to the Lord's spiritual ambition, the inheritance was extended from the Jewish people to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;nations, and from literal Canaan to all the earth? This is not to say, of course, that&nbsp;<em>fundamentally</em>&nbsp;the promises to Abraham have been changed. No. The promise of eternal inheritance of Canaan still stands as the basis of the Gospel of the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>), but that promise has been considerably extended, thanks to the Lord's spiritual ambition:&nbsp;<br/>Abraham believed God in Genesis 15, but the works of Genesis 22 offering Isaac made that faith “perfect”. Through his correct response to the early promises given him, Abraham was imputed “the righteousness of faith”. But&nbsp;<em>on account of</em>&nbsp;that faith inspired by the earlier promises, he was given “the promises that he should be heir of the world” (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>). That promise in turn inspired yet more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel preached to Abraham in the promises leads men “from faith to faith”, up the upward spiral (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>).<br/>Through his correct response to the early promises given him, Abraham was imputed “the righteousness of faith”. But&nbsp;<em>on account of</em>&nbsp;that faith inspired by the earlier promises, he was given “the promise that he should be heir of the world” (<em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>). That promise in turn inspired yet more faith. In this same context, Paul had spoken of how the Gospel preached to Abraham in the promises leads men “from faith to faith”, up the upward spiral (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:14'>Rom 4:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of no power-&nbsp;</em>The huge importance attached to faith in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em> would be pointless if obedience to the Law was what guaranteed the promise of inheritance the world- as Jewish theology taught about Abraham. The promise of the Kingdom would become irrelevant because Paul has demonstrated in Romans 1-3 that all men, Abraham included, are sinners, law breakers, and condemned before the judgment seat of God. Nobody would therefore inherit the promised Kingdom, and so the promise of it would have been pointless- see on <em><a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the law works anger; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression</em>- The wrath of Divine condemnation. Because nobody keeps God’s law fully, therefore the law brings those under it to condemnation. Another way has to be found if we wish to be declared right and not condemned. To say that the law creates AV “works” Divine wrath upon men is another example of Paul using purposefully radical and controversial language to demonstrate the seriousness of sin and the utter folly of hiding behind legal righteousness. Law creates the possibility of “transgression”, a conscious crossing over the line. Sin is one thing; but transgression is what brings liability to receiving the wrath of God, because if we know His law and cross over it, then we are the more culpable. This difference between sin and transgression is at the root of a great Biblical theme- that knowledge brings responsibility. And this was particularly relevant and concerning, or it ought to have been, to a Jewish audience so keen to attain rightness with God through obedience to law.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore it is of faith, that it may be according to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure</em>- God’s promises are sure from His end, in that He will not break them. But the promised inheritance of the Kingdom would never be a very sure promise if it depended upon human acts of obedience to come true. But because salvation is by our faith in God’s grace, declaring us right quite apart from our works- therefore we are sure of entering that Kingdom, and in this sense it is grace which makes the promise sure. The certainty of our future hope and present salvation is therefore precisely in the fact that it doesn’t depend upon our works. All the time we think it does, the promise of salvation will not appear to us to be at all “sure”.</p><p><em>To all the seed</em>- the fact salvation is by pure grace to sinners means that any person of whatever ethnic background may believe in it and accept it. The result of that is that there should be no spiritual difference between ethnic groups such as Jew and Gentile in Rome. And today, our common experience of utter grace, each of us accessing it by faith, should be the basis for a powerful unity.</p><p><em>Not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham</em>- There is an intended ambiguity in the phrase “the faith of Abraham" (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>); this 'ambiguous genitive' can mean those who share "the (doctrinal) faith" , which Abraham also believed; or those who have the kind of belief which Abraham had. Like Abraham, we are justified by&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;faith in Christ; not faith in Christ, but more specifically&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>faith in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>). The use of the definite article surely suggests that it is our possession of the same doctrinal truths (the Faith) which Abraham had, which is what leads to faith in Christ and thereby our justification. The&nbsp;<em>life</em>&nbsp;Paul lived was by&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;Faith of Christ; not simply by faith, as a verb, which is how grammatically it should be expressed if this is what was meant; but by&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;Faith (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>).</p><p><em>Who is the father of us all</em>- see on <em><a href='B:520 4:1'>Rom 4:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>(As it is written, A father of many nations have I made you) before Him whom he believed, God, who gives life to the dead-</em>&nbsp;This continues the language of our standing “before God” in <em><a href='B:520 3:19-20'>Rom 3:19-20</a></em> and being condemned there for our sins, and yet also being declared righteous there by His grace and our faith in that grace. The first part of v. 17 is in brackets, correctly in my opinion. Abraham was declared the “father of us all” (<em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>) before God, as he stood as it were in God’s judgment presence and was justified, declared right- God then considered him as the father of us all, naming things AV “calling” which didn’t exist as if they did. Abraham the ungodly was counted as Godly; we who were sinners, disobedient to the law, were counted as obedient; and thus God as it were saw Abraham before His presence not merely as Abraham, but as representative of so many others who would likewise believe in God’s grace and be thereby justified.</p><p><em>And called things that are not, as though they were</em>- This is exactly what Paul has been arguing all through his letter so far. God calls the unrighteous righteous, counting righteousness to those who believe, who are themselves not righteous. “Calls” strictly means ‘to name’, and the reference would initially be to the way God called Abram as Abraham, as if he already was the father of the people of many nations whom God foresaw would believe in His promised grace just as Abraham had done. God saw us then as if we existed, in the same way as He sees us as righteous even though we are not. The idea of calling things which don’t exist into existence also has suggestions of creation (<em><a href='B:290 41:4'>Isa 41:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:13'>Isa 48:13</a></em>). The new, spiritual creation is indeed a creation&nbsp;<em>ex nihilo</em>, an act of grace. Incomprehensible to the modern mind, the natural creation involved the creation of matter from out of God, and not out of any visible, concrete matter which already existed. The physical creation therefore looked forward to the grace of the new creation- creating people spiritually out of nothing, counting righteousness to them which they didn’t have, treating them as persons whom they were not.</p><p>Because God is not limited by time, He speaks of things which do not now exist as if they do, because He knows that ultimately they will exist (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). This explains why the Bible speaks as if Abraham is still alive although he is now dead; as if the believers are now saved in God’s kingdom, although “he that endureth to the end shall be saved” (<em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em>); as if Israel were obedient to God’s word (<em><a href='B:230 132:4'>Psa 132:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 19:5-6'>Exo 19:5-6</a></em>), when they will only be so in the future; as if Christ existed before His birth, although he evidently only existed physically after his birth of Mary:&nbsp;</p><p>Our comprising the Kingdom to some degree is understandable seeing that God speaks of "those things which be not as though they were" (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). Thus Abraham and those believers who have died are described as 'living unto God' in prospect, because He can foresee their resurrection (<em><a href='B:490 20:38'>Luk 20:38</a></em>). It is to this that <em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em> refers: "Reckon yourselves (i:e. in prospect)... alive unto God through (having been resurrected with) Jesus" in baptism. In the same way as in prospect we should reckon ourselves resurrected to eternal life, unable to give service to sin any longer, so in the same way we are now in the Kingdom. Careful attention to the tenses in <em><a href='B:530 15:20'>1Co 15:20</a></em> indicates the same logic; by His resurrection Christ has "become the firstfruits of them that slept"- not those 'who are sleeping', but "that slept", seeing that because of their Lord's resurrection they also are alive in prospect. Similarly if Christ had not risen "they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished" (<em><a href='B:530 15:18'>1Co 15:18</a></em>), implying that now they are not perished. The practical meaning of all this is that we should live now in the same joy and righteousness as if we were in the Kingdom. "The day (of the Kingdom) is at hand: let us therefore... walk honestly, as in the day" (<em><a href='B:520 13:12-13'>Rom 13:12-13</a></em>), i:e. as if we are now living in the Kingdom which is soon to come.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who in hope believed against hope</em>&nbsp;– see on <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>. The first “hope” may be human hope- and Abraham as a sinner was in a hopeless situation. Yet he believed and thereby shared in God’s hopefulness for us, seeing himself as God saw him- as declared right. “Against” could equally be translated “beyond”. Beyond human hope, Abraham had hope. This is the essence of the Gospel- having no hope in our own strength, standing condemned and speechless before God, but believing in His hopefulness for us. His faith in this instance was that he would indeed become a father of many nations. He didn’t just believe that he was declared right with God, but that really and truly there would be people world-wide who would likewise believe and become his seed. In this sense he believed in God’s hope. We likewise need to share in the hopefulness of God for people rather than being negative, cynical and defeatist about people just because so many chose not to respond.</p><p><em>To the end that he might become a father of many nations, according to what had been spoken: So shall your seed be</em>- Because of Sarah’s faith, “therefore sprang there... so many as the stars of the sky in multitude” (<em><a href='B:650 11:11-12'>Heb 11:11-12</a></em>). Those promises to Abraham had their fulfilment, but conditional on Abraham and Sarah’s faith. <em><a href='B:10 18:18-20'>Gen 18:18-20</a></em> says that the fulfilment of the promises was conditional on Abraham teaching his children / seed the ways of God. Those promises / prophesies were “sure” in the sense that God’s side of it was. <em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em> likewise comments that Abraham became “the father of many nations” precisely because he&nbsp;<em>believed</em>&nbsp;in this hope. Yet the promise / prophecy that he would be a father of many nations could sound as if it would have happened anyway, whatever. But it was actually conditional upon Abraham’s faith. And he is our great example exactly because he had the possibility and option of&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>believing in the hope he had been offered.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And without being weakened in faith</em>- s:w. “impotent”, <em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em>; the word is usually used with the sense of sickness or weak health. Abraham was physically impotent, perhaps even seriously ill and weak at the time the promise was given- but not impotent or weak in faith. The idea of the Greek is that Abraham didn’t weaken in faith as he observed / considered his body. We showed in our introductory comments that the theological first half of Romans has many connections with the practical second half. Thus we meet this very same phrase “weak in faith” in <em><a href='B:520 14:1-2'>Rom 14:1-2</a></em> - where we are told to accept those who are “weak in faith”. This connection would seem to be a tacit admission that not all in the ecclesia are going to rise up to the faith of Abraham, even though he is to be the father of us all, in that we share that same family characteristic of faith. Thus on one hand Paul sets Abraham before us as a vital, crucial pattern- not an option, a nice idea, but a role model whose faith must be followed, in whose faithful steps we are to walk. And yet he accepts that not all in Christ will rise up to his level of faith- and we are to accept them. The same word for “weak” is used in <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> - whilst we were weak AV “without strength”, Christ died for us. We therefore are to accept the weak, even as Christ died for us in our weakness. We share something of His cross in accepting those who are spiritually weaker than ourselves. Yet so many refuse to carry His cross in this matter, because their own pride stops them accepting those weaker in the faith than themselves.</p><p><em>When he considered his own body, now as good as dead (he being about one hundred years old)-&nbsp;</em>He didn’t fix his mind upon (Gk:) the fact his body was dead&nbsp;(i:e. impotent) and unable to produce seed (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>). He wasn't obsessed with his state, yet he lived a life of faith that ultimately God’s Kingdom would come, he rejoiced at the contemplation of Christ his Lord; and he filled his life with practical&nbsp;service. He wasn't obsessed with the fact that in his marital position he personally couldn't have children when it seemed this was what God wanted him to do; and this was very pleasing to God. &nbsp; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em> says he was 99, so he was in his 100th year.</p><p><em>And the deadness of Sarah’s womb</em>- So often we allow the apparent weakness of others to become a barrier to our faith. ‘She’ll never change… she just isn’t capable of that’. But Abraham not only believed that&nbsp;<em>he</em>&nbsp;could do it, but that the apparent obstacle of another’s weakness was also surmountable by the word of promise.</p><p>There are some implied gaps within the record in <em><a href='B:10 15:5-6'>Gen 15:5-6</a></em>: God brings Abraham outside, and asks him to number the stars gap; then He tells Abraham "So shall thy seed be" gap; and then, maybe 10 seconds or 10 hours afterwards, "Abraham believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness". Those 10 seconds or 10 hours or whatever the period was, are summarized by Paul as how Abraham "in hope believed against hope" (<em><a href='B:520 4:18'>Rom 4:18</a></em>). His no-hope struggled against his hope / faith, but in the end his faith in God’s word of promise won out. "According to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be" implies to me that he kept reflecting on those words: "So shall thy seed be" (three words in Hebrew,&nbsp;<em>ko zehrah hawya</em>). And we too can too easily say that we believe the Bible is God’s word, without realizing that to just believe three inspired words can be enough to radically change our lives and lead us to eternity. I'm not sure that Abraham's ultimate belief of those three words&nbsp;<em>ko zehrah hawya</em>&nbsp;just took a few seconds. According to Paul, he "considered... his body"- he reflected on the fact he was impotent (see Gk. and RV):&nbsp;<em>Katanoeo</em>, "consider", means to "observe fully" (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>). He took full account of his impotent state, knowing it as only a man can know it about himself. And he likewise considered fully the deadness of his elderly wife's womb, recalling how her menstruation had stopped years ago... but all that deeply personal self-knowledge didn’t weaken his faith; he didn’t "waver", but in fact- the very opposite occurred. He "waxed strong through faith... being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform". As he considered his own physical weakness, and that of his wife, his faith "waxed" stronger (RV), he went through a process of becoming "fully assured", his faith was progressively built up ("waxed strong" is in the passive voice)... leading up to the moment of total faith that so thrilled the heart of God. And so it can happen with us- the very obstacles to faith, impotence in Abraham's case, are what actually leads to faith getting into that upward spiral that leads towards total certainty. Abraham's physical impotence did not make him "weak" s:w. translated "impotent" in <em><a href='B:500 5:3'>Joh 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:7'>Joh 5:7</a></em> in faith- it all worked out the opposite. For his physical impotence made him not-impotent in faith; the very height of the challenge led him to conclude that God would be true to His word, and he would indeed have a child. For when we are "weak" s:w. "impotent", then we are strong (<em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>). Thus the internal struggle of Abraham's mind led his faith to develop in those seconds or minutes or hours as he reflected upon the words "So shall your seed be". He "staggered not at the promise" (<em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>), he didn’t separate himself away from (Gk:) those three Hebrew words translated "So shall your seed be", he didn’t let his mind balk at them... and therefore and thereby he was made strong in faith ("waxed strong in faith" <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em> RV). This process of his faith strengthening is picked up in the next verse: Abraham was "fully persuaded that what God had promised, he was able also to perform" (<em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>). There was a process of internal persuasion going on- leading to the moment of faith, which so thrilled God and was imputed to Abraham for righteousness. And of course Paul drives the point home- that we are to have the faith of Abraham. As he believed that life could come out of his dead body ("dead" in <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>, with a passive participle, implies 'slain'), so&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;are to believe in the resurrection of the slain body of the Lord Jesus, and the real power of His new life to transform our dead lives (<em><a href='B:520 4:23-24'>Rom 4:23-24</a></em>). <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> puts it another way in saying that if we share the faith of Abraham at that time, we will receive "the promise of the spirit through faith", the enlivening of our sterile lives. And this takes quite some faith for us to take seriously on board; for as Abraham carefully considered the impotence of his physical body, so we can get a grim picture of the deadness of our fleshly lives. These ideas help us understand more clearly why the Lord chose to be baptized. He understood baptism as a symbol of his death (<em><a href='B:490 12:50'>Luk 12:50</a></em>). <em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em> likewise makes the connection between baptism and crucifixion. The Lord knew that He would be crucified, and yet He lived out the essence of it in His own baptism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But instead, looking to the promise of God, he did not waver through unbelief</em>- “Did not waver” is Gk:&nbsp;<em>diakrino</em>, to judge. Abraham didn’t judge God by doubting, analysing, forensically investigating, the promise made- finding all the possible reasons why it might not be true for him. This continues the idea of <em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em> - that man effectively puts God in the dock and prosecutes Him for false witness and unreal promises, the accusers being the doubts of God’s grace deep within the human mind. Abraham didn’t do this. The word occurs only one other time in Romans, in the practical section, in <em><a href='B:520 14:23'>Rom 14:23</a></em>: "He that doubts s:w. 'stagger' is damned if he eat". If we are truly Abraham's children and don't doubt God’s promises, we will have a strong conscience, not worrying that eating this or that or failing to keep some ritual will result in our losing God’s grace.</p><p><em>But grew strong through faith, giving glory to God</em>- Gk. ‘was / became strengthened’- by whom? By God? In this case we would see God’s grace yet more apparent, in that Abraham was justified by his faith in God’s grace, but God Himself partially empowered that faith. This would be an example of how faith is part of an upward spiritual spiral, the dynamic in which is God Himself- a theme with which Romans begins, when Paul talks about going “from faith to faith” (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>). Exactly the same term is used about Paul after his conversion- he "increased the more in strength" and confounded Jewish opposition to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 9:22'>Act 9:22</a></em>). As so often, Paul provides himself as a parade example of what he's preaching. Significantly, Paul elsewhere comments that it is Christ who strengthens him within his mind (<em><a href='B:570 4:13'>Phi 4:13</a></em> and context; other examples of the same word applied to Christ’s strengthening of Paul are in <em><a href='B:610 1:12'>1Ti 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>; and <em><a href='B:650 11:37'>Heb 11:37</a></em> says that the faithful of old were “made strong” in their faith, by God). We are thrown up yet again against God’s grace. We can be saved by grace if we believe in that grace, but the Lord is willing to even strengthen us in that necessary faith. See on <em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em> “fully persuaded”, where again God is the persuader of human faith. Abraham therefore gave the glory to God, because it was God who had strengthened his faith and the whole thing comes down to God’s grace in every way, for which we can only glorify Him. Paul uses the same phrase for ‘giving glory to God’ as in <em><a href='B:490 17:18'>Luk 17:18</a></em>, where it is a Gentile rather than the Jews who give glory to God for what He has done for them- and surely this is another of Paul’s many allusions to the Gospel records.</p><p><em><a href='B:470 21:21'>Mat 21:21</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>. Paul saw Abraham as being like the man in the parable who had the faith to throw mountains into the sea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And became fully assured that what He had promised</em>- By whom? Surely by God. This continues the theme of ‘was strengthened’ in <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em> see note there, that although God’s saving grace is accessible to us by faith, He also plays a part in developing that faith. This of course lays the basis for Paul’s later comment in Romans upon predestination as being an indicator of God’s pure grace. For He doesn’t just start talking about predestination without a context- he cites it as an example, or another window onto, God’s grace.</p><p>We have earlier commented that the doctrinal section of Romans chapters 1-8 has many connections with the latter, practical part of Romans; and we’ve demonstrated that several verses in Romans 4 contain phrases which recur in Romans 14. “Fully persuaded” occurs elsewhere in Romans only in <em><a href='B:520 14:5'>Rom 14:5</a></em>, where Paul urges that each of us, like Abraham, should be “fully persuaded in our own mind” about the matter of Sabbath keeping. The implication isn’t so much that each of us should just be certain that we are fully persuaded of our position- that would be to state an axiom needlessly- but surely the point of the allusion to Abraham’s full persuasion in <em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em> is that if we have been fully persuaded of God’s salvation being by pure grace and not works, then we will not be concerned about keeping days or indeed any other ritual in order to gain His acceptance. That same principle can be applied in our church lives, in forming our approach to matters of external ritual e.g. head coverings for sisters, or dress codes at church meetings which in our generation may be a live issue, as Sabbath keeping was for the Rome ecclesia of the first century.</p><p><em>He was able also to perform</em>- It may seem obvious that anyone who believes in the God of the Bible will believe that God Almighty is truly almighty, and is capable of doing what He has promised. And yet when it comes to believing that He is able to save me despite my sins and regardless of my works- we all baulk. Abraham believed, that God was able to do what He had said. To save him, without works. The only other time the Greek phrase translated “able to perform” occurs is in <em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em>, where young Mary exalts that the God who is able has performed great things for her. Perhaps Paul is setting her up as our example. That barefoot and pregnant, illiterate young woman (a teenager, probably), who took God at His word. Paul maybe has the same sense in mind when he comments that the God who cannot lie has promised us eternal life (<em><a href='B:630 1:2'>Tit 1:2</a></em>). John in characteristic bluntness puts it so clearly: “This is the promise that He has promised us: eternal life” (<em><a href='B:690 2:25'>1Jn 2:25</a></em>). To doubt that we shall receive it is effectively calling Him a liar. We are between a rock and a hard place. We must either face up to the wonder of our salvation, or do the unthinkable- call God a liar, one incapable of doing what He has said. Sarah likewise “judged Him faithful who had promised” (<em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>). There again we meet the idea of putting God in the dock. We judge Him- as either faithful, or unfaithful; able or unable; almighty or impotent, a god of nice ideas and fair words which have no cash value in the weakness and desperation of our human, earthly lives. The Greek translated “promise” can be used in the context of a legal assertion about oneself (although it isn’t used within the NT in this way). God is in the dock, making the promise, the assertion about Himself, His very own self, that He will give us eternal life. And we judge Him- as speaking the Truth, the most ultimate truth of the cosmos, of history- or as lying under oath to us. Faced with a choice like that, we have no real choice but with Abraham and Sarah “judge Him faithful who has promised” (<em><a href='B:650 11:11'>Heb 11:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:22'>Rom 4:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore also it was counted to him for righteousness</em>- This word occurs so many times in Romans 4. Abraham’s faith that God would give him the promised blessing and salvation was counted to him as righteousness, with no reference to Abraham’s works or sins. The word recurs in the practical section of Romans just once- in <em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>: “To him that counts anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean”- although there is nothing “unclean in itself”. God counts us as clean, not unclean. The person who is always paranoid about this that or the other being unclean, the need to separate from this brother or that sister for their uncleanness, hasn’t been filled with the positive spirit of our Father, who rejoices to count unclean persons as clean. This isn’t in any way to blur the boundary between clean and unclean, sin and righteousness. Rather is it the logical connection between <em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>, speaking of God calling sinners as righteous; and <em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>, which warns that men&nbsp;have a tendency to count / impute things as unclean rather than clean. Cleanness or uncleanness is a matter of perception, seems to be Paul’s message. For “there is nothing unclean in itself”. Likewise sin and righteousness are matters of God’s perception; for sometimes a man can do something which is counted a sin, other times the same act can be counted as righteousness. Yet God is eager to count us as clean; and we should have that same positive, seeking, saving spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:23'>Rom 4:23</a></em><em> Now it was not written for his sake alone</em>- Where was it written? In some unrecorded Scripture? In God’s heavenly record book? Or is the allusion to the finality of the legal case now concluded, that ‘it was written’ in the sense of legally concluded, under the hammer, so to speak? The suggestion is that right now in this life, if we really believe God’s offered salvation, or perhaps,&nbsp;<em>for so long</em>&nbsp;as we believe it- we are written down as declared right before His judgment. In this case, Paul is interpreting the comment in <em><a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a></em> “And it was imputed unto him for righteousness” as a writing in Heaven, the court secretary writing down the outcome of the case. The Jews taught that justification would only be at the future day of judgment (see&nbsp;D:&nbsp;Moo,<em>&nbsp;Romans 1-8</em>, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1991) p. 293). Paul is teaching that in fact we can be justified, declared right with God, here and now; and we ought to be able to know and feel that.</p><p><em>That it was counted to him</em>- This appears to be a pointless repetition of the same phrase in the preceding <em><a href='B:520 4:22'>Rom 4:22</a></em>. Paul keeps on and on repeating it to try to impress upon us the sheer wonder of it all- that we are counted righteous when we are not.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:24'>Rom 4:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But for our sake also, to whom it shall be counted</em>- In that Abraham was being consciously set up as our example; and the record of Abraham’s justification by faith is purposefully designed, Paul seems to be inferring, to inspire us to a similar faith.</p><p><em>Who believe in Him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead</em>- Our faith is that God will justify us by His grace. But as Paul will now go on to show (see on <em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>), that position of being declared right with God will be articulated in our being given eternal life. This means in practice that we will be resurrected as Jesus was, and given eternal life. So our belief in God is a belief in the God of resurrection, who resurrected Jesus our representative, in whom, through faith and baptism into His death and resurrection, we shall also be resurrected to eternal life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who was delivered up for our trespasses-&nbsp;</em>An allusion to the LXX of <em><a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a></em>: “He was handed over because of their sins”. The Gospel accounts of the crucifixion give special emphasis to the moment of the Lord being handed over to those who would crucify Him. Paul is going on to show the mechanics, as it were, of how God has chosen to operate. His scheme of justifying us isn’t merely a case of Him saying ‘So you are declared right by Me’. He can do as He wishes, but He prefers to work through some kind of mechanism. We are declared right by God although we are sinners; which raises the obvious question: So what becomes of our sins? And so Paul explains that by talking about the crucial role of the death of Christ. Because He was of our nature, He is our representative. Although He never sinned, He died, yet He rose again to eternal life. Through connection with Him, we therefore can be counted as in Him, and thereby be given that eternal life through resurrection, regardless of our sins. In this sense, Jesus had to die and resurrect because of our sins:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And was raised for our justification-&nbsp;</em>This also is an allusion to the LXX of Isaiah 53, this time to <em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>, which speaks of “the righteous servant” (Jesus) “justifying the righteous”. The repetition of the word “righteous” suggests that on account of the Lord’s death, and resurrection, His righteousness becomes ours, through this process of justification. But how and why, exactly, does Christ’s death and resurrection enable our justification? Paul has explained that faith in God brings justification before Him. Now Paul is explaining how and why this process operates. Jesus died and rose again to eternal life as our representative. If we believe into Him (which chapter 6 will define as involving our identification with His death and resurrection by baptism), then we too will live for ever as He does, as we will participate in His resurrection to eternal life. Our final justification, being declared in the right, will be at the day of judgment. We will be resurrected, judged, and declared righteous- and given eternal life, never again to sin and die. This is the end result of the status of ‘justified’ which we have now, as we stand in the dock facing God’s judgment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Being therefore justified by faith</em>- There’s a noticeable change of style beginning at <em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>. Paul starts to talk about “we”, as if he assumes that he has won the argument in chapters 1-4 and taken his readership with him- they along with him are now, as it were, believers in Christ. Instead of the focus on “justification” which there is in chapters 1-4, the end result of God’s work for us is generally replaced with the word “life”, i:e. eternal life, occurring 24 times in chapters 5-8. Chapters 5-8 of Romans form a definite section. The words “love”, “justify”, “glory”, “peace”, “hope”, “tribulation”, “save” and “endurance” all occur in <em><a href='B:520 5:1-11'>Rom 5:1-11</a></em> and also several times in <em><a href='B:520 8:18-39'>Rom 8:18-39</a></em>. These passages form bookends an ‘inclusio’ is the technical term to the material sandwiched between them. Paul is going on from us standing before Divine judgment declared right, justified by our faith in God’s promise of grace. That salvation will be and is articulated in terms of life, eternal life, life lived both now and in its fullness after we again stand before the final judgment seat of Christ.</p><p><em>We have peace with God-&nbsp;</em>It's hard to avoid the conclusion that God has written His word in such a way as to leave some things intentionally ambiguous. He could just have given us a set of brief bullet points, written in an unambiguous manner. But instead He gave us the Bible. Given that most of His people over history have been illiterate, they simply couldn't have been able to understand His word in an academic, dissective, analytical sense. Take <em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em> - it could read "Let us have peace" (subjunctive) or "We have peace" (indicative). The difference is merely the length of a vowel, and this would only have been apparent in&nbsp;<em>reading</em>&nbsp;it, as the difference wouldn't have been aurally discernible when the letter was publicly read.</p><p><em>Peace</em>&nbsp;here refers to our being right with God, rather than a calmness in life generally. Such a thing isn’t promised to Christians but rather the very opposite. “Peace with God” cannot be experienced if we are continually doubting whether or not we shall ultimately be saved. We should be able to say that if the Lord were to return right now, by grace, we believe that we shall surely be saved; for we are right here and now justified before God’s judgment seat. Therefore we experience right now “peace with God”.</p><p><em>Through our Lord Jesus Christ</em>- previously Paul has pointed out that God has set us right with Him simply if we can believe that He would do this. But increasingly, Paul points out that&nbsp;<em>how and why&nbsp;</em>this is- He does this on account of the work of the Lord Jesus:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:2'>Rom 5:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Through whom also we have had our access</em>&nbsp;<em>by faith into this grace wherein we stand</em>- may be continuing the judgment image of chapters 3 and 4, in which we are left standing in the dock before the judgment of God, and by grace are declared right when in fact we are sinners. And we stand there before God’s judgment, very much in grace. The language of ‘access into’ suggests that “this grace” is a situation, a ‘place’, a status, in which we are now permanently located. “Access into… wherein we stand” is a phrase used in classical Greek about entering a royal presence (Moo,&nbsp;<em>op cit:&nbsp;</em>p. 300 gives examples). So the idea is very much of our standing in the august judgment presence of God acceptable by status. This point needs to be more than intellectually noted; it must be our real and felt experience that we are not one moment in an acceptable status with God, and then next we slip out of it- through inattention, insensitivity, or downright selfish rebellion on our part. We are in a relationship, married as it were to Him, bearing His Name, and thereby in a permanent status. Perhaps we can be so foolish as to leave that status, but we certainly don’t drift in and out of it insofar as we sin or avoid sinning in the course of daily life. The very nature of the “grace” status which we are in means that we are declared right, OK with God, in spite or and even in the face of our sins:&nbsp;</p><p><em>By faith into this grace wherein we stand and in which we rejoice-</em>&nbsp;Standing before God justified means that in the judgment day to come at the Lord’s return to earth, we will be accepted and given eternal life in God’s Kingdom. We are to rejoice (Gk. ‘boast’) in that hope quite naturally- for Paul doesn’t exhort us to rejoice in the hope, he simply states that given our position of grace, we, naturally, rejoice in hope. If we cannot say “Yes” to the question “Will you be accepted before the judgment seat of Christ?”, then I fail to see that we can rejoice in hope. To rejoice in hope means that we have accepted God’s judgment of us now- and His judgment is that we are acceptable to Him, that even now, “it’s all OK”. If we are to boast in this hope- and the Greek translated “rejoice” definitely means that- this would imply that we can’t keep quiet about such good news. We simply have to share it with others:&nbsp;</p><p><em>In hope of the glory of God</em>- Our hope to participate in this glory, which is associated in <em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em> with the future Kingdom of God on earth, connects with what Paul has earlier reasoned in <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em> - that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. We who have been declared right can now rejoice in the prospect of participating in that glory, that glorious eternal future, which we fell short of by our sins. We commented under <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em> that Paul is referring to writings such as the Apocalypse of Moses, which claimed that Adam had fallen short of God’s glory in Eden, but the hope of the Messianic age would be Adam’s restoration to the glory intended in Eden (Apoc. Moses 39:2-3). Adam is everyman- a theme now to be developed specifically here in Romans 5:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:3'>Rom 5:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance</em>- “Sufferings” is s:w. <em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em>, where we read that “tribulation” will come upon the rejected, faithless sinner at the day of judgment. Paul no doubt had in mind “the tribulation” which the Olivet prophecy and other NT Scriptures predicted would come upon the faithful in the first century. But the connection with <em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em> suggests that he saw that in a sense, we are condemned for our sins now, and as he explains in Romans 6, we die to sin, in baptism we take fully the condemnation for sin, and we rise again as new people, like the Lord Jesus, who are not under condemnation. Indeed the same word for “tribulation” occurs in <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>, where Paul exalts that tribulation, distress, persecution, hunger, nakedness, peril and the sword cannot separate us from Christ’s loving acceptance; and most if not all of those terms are applied elsewhere in Scripture to the rejected at the day of judgment. The condemnation for sin- our sins- will not separate&nbsp;us from Christ’s love, and we shall be saved all the same. If this idea of “tribulation” as part of the condemnation process for sinners is indeed somewhere in Paul’s mind (for this is how the word is used in <em><a href='B:600 1:6'>2Th 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:22'>Rev 2:22</a></em>), he would be saying that as a result of experiencing in our lives the condemnation for sin, we come through enduring the process “patience”,&nbsp;<em>hupomone</em>&nbsp;to ‘pass the test’ (<em><a href='B:520 5:4'>Rom 5:4</a></em>, AV “experience” is a terribly poor translation), and through that we come to a sure hope in acceptance at the last day and a feeling unashamed (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>), despite knowing we are on one hand condemned sinners.</p><p>“Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace... let us rejoice... let us also rejoice in our tribulations" (<em><a href='B:520 5:1-3'>Rom 5:1-3</a></em> RV). If we really feel justified due to righteousness being imputed to us, then this will give us a joyful perspective on all suffering. For the reality that we are counted righteous will mean that all tribulation "under the sun" is not so ultimately meaningful; and thus we will find all joy and peace through believing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:4'>Rom 5:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And endurance produces character, and character produces hope</em>– See on <em><a href='B:520 5:3'>Rom 5:3</a></em>. “Experience” translates a Greek word elsewhere translated ‘to put to the proof’, and meaning ‘to pass the test’. We are going through the future judgment process right now- by passing through “tribulation”, living out the consequences for our sin, but in faith in God’s acceptance of us- we pass the test. The future day of judgment isn’t our ultimate test or putting to the proof; our faithful acceptance of salvation by grace today, right now, is our crucial testing or proving:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And hope does not put us to shame</em>- A significant theme in Paul and Peter (<em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:6'>1Pe 2:6</a></em>):. The believer in Christ will not be ashamed at the last day judgment, with which “shame” is so often associated for the rejected (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:9'>Luk 14:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:13'>Jud 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). If we have confident hope that we will not be rejected but will be saved at the last day, that we will not be ashamed then- therefore nothing in this life should make us feel ashamed, not even our own sins, for the shame of them is taken away by God’s declaring us right.</p><p><em>Because God’s love</em>- Gk:&nbsp;<em>hoti</em>&nbsp;isn’t necessarily causative but it can be demonstrative. Paul may not therefore mean that we are unashamed&nbsp;<em>because&nbsp;</em>the love of God is in our hearts; he may mean that we are unashamed, as the final end result of God’s justification process, we stand before Him uncondemned, not in shame as are the rejected sinners; and&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;the love of God becomes shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. This latter option is how I interpret&nbsp;<em>hoti</em>&nbsp;here, because Paul has been building up all throughout the letter to the reason why we are unashamed at judgment- it is because we are declared legally right before God’s judgment by God the judge of all, due to our faith in His grace which operates through Jesus. Nothing has so far been said about the Holy Spirit in our hearts being the basis for this unashamed position. Our standing before God justified, declared right, forgiven, accepted at judgment, rejoicing in sure hope of eternity in the glory of God’s Kingdom- this leads to the love of God filling our hearts. His love for us elicits our love for Him, and it fills our hearts.</p><p><em>Has been poured into our hearts</em>- <em><a href='B:630 3:6'>Tit 3:6</a></em> uses the same word to speak of how God’s grace has been “shed abroad” abundantly upon us. The word is of course frequently used about the shedding of Christ’s blood; because of God’s colossal gift to us, of His Son, bringing about our justification if we believe in Him… then in due turn, the awareness of God’s love is likewise shed into our hearts. Whether we have really believed and accepted the good news is answerable by whether or not we feel and know God’s love to have been shed abroad, to have gushed out, into our hearts. Paul gives the hint several times in Romans 1-8 that this situation is not drifted into; the idea of gushing out or shedding suggests a one-time moment when this happened. ‘Justification’, the being declared legally right, is always spoken of grammatically as if this is a one off defined event which happened to us at a moment in the past. This moment is defined by Paul in Romans 6 as baptism, when we become “in Christ”. Note that he is writing to Roman Christians who had already been baptized and believed in Christ- rather than seeking to convert unbelievers. They may well not have felt any watershed moment at their conversion or baptism. But Paul’s whole point is that even though they may not have felt it emotionally, this is actually how it is in reality, and we can now appreciate it and feel the wonder of the status into which we entered, even if it was unappreciated by us at the time. It is this feature more perhaps than anything else which makes this letter so relevant to we today who read it, who like the Romans have already believed, been baptized- and yet likely fail to appreciate the huge implications of the position we have now entered.</p><p><em>Through the Holy Spirit which has been given unto us</em>- the whole argument so far in Romans has said nothing about the Holy Spirit. Note the comments under “Because…” above. This isn’t teaching that the Holy Spirit zapped our hearts and therefore all these wonderful things are true. We are unashamed, at the end of the process outlined in <em><a href='B:520 5:3-5'>Rom 5:3-5</a></em>, because we stand at judgment day even now uncondemned, not ashamed as the condemned are, because of our faith in God’s grace. This is how we come to be unashamed- not because the Holy Spirit zapped us. It is God’s grace, justification, which has been given unto us. We could read in an ellipsis here, as often required in reading Romans, and understand this phrase as referring to how the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts ‘by what the Holy Spirit has given unto us’. This would associate ‘the Holy Spirit’ with the power of God by which He has orchestrated and executed this entire wondrous plan of his.<br/>Serious meditation upon the Lord's work ought to have this effect upon us. Can we really see his agony, his bloody sweat, without a thought for our response to it? It's impossible to passively behold it all. There is something practically compelling about it, almost in a mystical way.<em>&nbsp;Because</em>&nbsp;“Christ died for the ungodly", because in the cross “the love of God" was commended to us,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;“the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us" (<em><a href='B:520 5:5-6'>Rom 5:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>). As the smitten rock gave out water, so the smitten Saviour gave out the water of the Spirit. This link between the shedding of the Lord’s blood and the shedding of love in our hearts is surely because an understanding and relation to His sacrifice brings forth in the believer a response of love and spirituality. As the love of God was shown in the cross, so it will be reflected in the heart of he who truly knows and believes it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>. Paul in <em><a href='B:520 5:6-8'>Rom 5:6-8</a></em> lays out a three point logical case for the supremacy of God’s love. Each of those three verses ends with the Greek word “die”, to stylistically emphasize the step logic.</p><p><em>For while we were yet weak</em>- The Greek word is pronounced as-then-ace; “the ungodly” translates a Greek word pronounced as-eb-ace. Bearing in mind the generally illiterate nature of Paul’s primary readership, such literary devices which assisted memorization of the text are common in the NT. Christ died for us before we had anything at all to commend us. He didn’t await our faith or repentance and then die for us, but He died for us in order to inspire those very things. Paul describes all of us as having been saved although we were “without strength”, using the same word used about the disciples asleep in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>). He saw the evident similarity between them and us, tragically indifferent in practice to the mental agony of our Lord, failing to share His intensity of striving- although we are so willing in spirit to do this. And yet, Paul implies, be better than them. Don't be weak “without strength” and sleepy as they were when Christ wanted them awake (<em><a href='B:470 26:40-41'>Mat 26:40-41</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 5:6-7'>1Th 5:6-7</a></em>). Strive for the imitation of Christ's attitude in the garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em> = <em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em>). And yet in Romans 7, a depressed but realistic Paul laments that he fails in this; his description of the losing battle he experienced within him between flesh and spirit is couched in the language of Christ's rebuke to the disciples in Gethsemane (the spirit was willing, but the flesh weak).</p><p><em>In due time</em>- The Greek could imply ‘at just the right time’. Perhaps God’s wrath was set to destroy the earth by the time of Christ, but He came and successfully did His work at the right time. But perhaps the idea is more that Christ died for us “at that very time” when we were weak and ungodly. He died for us in the hope of what we could potentially become through exercising faith; and our sacrifices for others, not least in the work of preaching and nurturing, are made in the same spirit. They are made whilst the objects of our attention appear immature, non-existent or unbelieving.</p><p><em>Christ died for</em>- All that is true of the Lord Jesus becomes in some sense, at some time, true of each of us who are in Him. It’s true that nowhere in the Bible is the Lord Jesus actually called our “representative”, but the idea is clearly there. I suggest it’s especially clear in all the Bible passages which speak of Him acting&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;us- what Dorothee Sölle called “the preposition of representation” (1). Arndt and Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon define&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;in the genitive as meaning “’for’, ‘in behalf of’, ‘for the sake of’ someone (2). When used in the sense of representation,&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;is associated with verbs like ‘request, pray, care, work, feel, suffer, die, support’”. So in the same way as the Lord representatively prays, died, cares, suffers, works “for” us, we are to do likewise, if He indeed is our representative and we his. Our prayers for another, our caring for them, is no longer a rushed salving of our conscience through some good deed. Instead <em><a href='B:540 5:15'>2Co 5:15</a></em> becomes our motivation: “He died for (<em>huper</em>) all of us, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for (<em>huper</em>) them”. We are, in our turn, to go forth and be “ambassadors for (<em>huper</em>) Christ... we pray you in Christ’s stead (<em>huper&nbsp;</em>Christ), be reconciled to God” (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>). Grasping Him as our representative means that we will be His representatives in this world, and not leave that to others or think that our relationship in Him is so internal we needn’t breathe nor show a word of it to others. As He suffered “the just for (<em>huper</em>) the unjust” (<em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>), our living, caring, praying for others is no longer done “for” those whom we consider good enough, worthy enough, sharing our religious convictions and theology. For whilst we were yet sinners, Christ died&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;us (<em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>). And this representative death is to find an issue in our praying&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;others (<em><a href='B:510 12:5'>Act 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:11'>2Co 1:11</a></em>), just as He makes intercession&nbsp;<em>huper&nbsp;</em>us (<em><a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>). We are to spend and be spent&nbsp;<em>huper&nbsp;</em>others, after the pattern of the Lord in His final nakedness of death on the cross (<em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em>). These must all be far more than fine ideas for us. These are the principles which we are to live by in hour by hour life. And they demand a huge amount, even the cross itself. For unto us is given “in the behalf of Christ&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;Christ, not only to quietly, painlessly, theoretically believe on Him, but also to suffer for (<em>huper</em>) his sake” (<em><a href='B:570 1:29'>Phi 1:29</a></em>). In all this, then, we see that the Lord’s being our representative was not only at the time of His death; the fact He continues to be our representative makes Him our ongoing challenge:&nbsp;</p><p><em>The ungodly</em>- connecting with how we read in <em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em> that by faith, the ungodly are declared right with God. And the context there suggests Abraham was along with us all in that category of “ungodly”. Elsewhere, “the ungodly” are those who specifically will be condemned at the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:7'>2Pe 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:15'>Jud 1:15</a></em>). We stand in the dock before God’s judgment and are condemned. We aren’t just the passive, the rather lazy to respond to God- we are, every one of us, “the ungodly”, the condemned. But Christ died for&nbsp;<em>us</em>, so that we might be declared right, become de-condemned, have the verdict changed right around.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:7'>Rom 5:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For one will scarcely die for a righteous man Perhaps for the good man some one would even dare to die</em>- This verse feels like it’s quoting some saying or verse from some other writing. The sense may be that for a righteous man the Greek phrase is used in this part of Romans to refer to Jesus as the perfectly righteous one it’s hard to die&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;him “scarcely”- Gk. ‘with difficulty’, to save him- for he isn’t in need of saving; but for a good man, humanly “good” rather than morally righteous, some would “dare” (Gk. ‘be bold’) to die. True as this observation may be, the whole point is that Christ died for us when we were “sinners”- neither morally righteous, nor humanly ‘good guys’ who might inspire their buddy to die for them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God commends His own love toward us</em>- The Greek translated “commend” means to set down beside, in contrast to, over against. And it’s in the continuous tense. God keeps on doing this. But what is His love so continually laid down against? Surely against our sins and failures. But it keeps on being commended through the fact that Christ died for us, whilst we were still sinners. Christ died once only, and so the continual commendation of this fact is in that continually, we perceive the wonder of it all. Our unrighteousness commends God’s righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 3:8'>Rom 3:8</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>In that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us</em>- This shows the greatest example in the cosmos of taking the initiative, of seeking to save others when there is no appreciation from them&nbsp;<em>at the time</em>&nbsp;of what you are doing. This is an endless inspiration in child rearing, preaching and pastoral work. Tragically, the simple words "Christ died for us" (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>) have been grossly misunderstood as meaning that Christ died instead of us:&nbsp;There are a number of connections between Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (e.g. v. 12 = <em><a href='B:530 15:21'>1Co 15:21</a></em>;&nbsp;v. 17 = <em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em>):&nbsp;"Christ died for&nbsp;<em>us</em>" (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>) is matched by "Christ died for our&nbsp;<em>sins</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>):&nbsp;His death was in order to make a way whereby we can gain forgiveness of our sins;&nbsp;it was in this sense that "Christ died for us":&nbsp;The word "for" does not necessarily mean 'instead of';&nbsp;Christ died "for (because of) our sins", not 'instead of' them:&nbsp;Because of this, Christ can "make intercession" for us (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>) - not 'instead of' us:&nbsp; Neither does "for" mean 'instead of' in <em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>. If Christ died ‘instead of us’ there would be no need to carry His cross, as He bids us. And there would be no sense in being baptized into His death and resurrection, willingly identifying ourselves with Him as our victorious representative:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the anger of God through him</em>- If He died for us whilst we were unborn and before we had repented of our sins; if right now we are counted right before God’s judgment seat; then we can confidently expect to being saved from “the wrath” (Gk:), the condemnation at the last day. Note how <em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em> spoke of justification by our faith; here, by “His blood”. His blood shed for us only becomes powerful and of any value&nbsp;<em>if we believe</em>. It’s a tragedy that His sacrifice for us goes wasted unless we and others believe. “Much more then” seems to be rejoicing in playing some kind of logical game of extension, which continues in <em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>.</p><p>In the future, at the Lord's return, we will be saved from wrath (i:e. condemnation) through Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>). Whilst this has already been achieved in a sense, it will be materially articulated in that day- in that we will feel and know ourselves to be worthy of God’s wrath, but then be saved from it. We are all to some extent in the position of Zedekiah and the men of Judah, who was told that if they accepted God’s condemnation of them as just, and served the King of Babylon, then they would ultimately be saved; but if they refused to accept that condemnation, then they would be eternally destroyed (<em><a href='B:300 21:9'>Jer 21:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 27:12'>Jer 27:12</a></em>). And the Babylonian invasion was, as we have shown elsewhere, a type of the final judgment.</p><p>We are justified by many things, all of which are in some way parallel with each other: the blood of Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:9'>Rom 5:9</a></em>), grace and the redemption which there is in His blood (<em><a href='B:520 3:24'>Rom 3:24</a></em>), our faith in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 2:16'>Gal 2:16</a></em>), the name of the Lord Jesus, the spirit of our God (<em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>), by our confession of sin (<em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:14'>Luk 18:14</a></em>). All these things revolve around the death of the Lord Jesus, the shedding of His blood. This becomes parallel with the name of Jesus, “Christ"- because the cross presents us with the very essence of the person of the Lord Jesus. But it is also parallel with the spirit or mind / essence of God. Because in that naked, bleeding, derided body and person, in that shed blood, there was the essence of all that God was to us, is to us, and ever shall be for us. It was the cross above all which revealed to us the essence of God Almighty. And it is the cross, the blood of Jesus, which elicits in us the confession of sin which is vital for our justification.<br/>The idea of a Saviour dying for us (<em><a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a></em>) and God’s wrath being turned away by His blood is all very much the language of “noble death” found in the stories of the Maccabees, which Paul had been brought up on. The idea was that the Jewish martyrs in their struggle against the occupying power had shed their blood “to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty” against Israel (<em>2Ma_7:37-38</em>); and thereby reconciled God with His people. But Paul is deconstructing these ideas, fiercely popular as they were amongst first century Jews. Paul’s point is that the wrath of God is against all human sin, and that the Lord Jesus through His willing death, rather than the Jewish heroes through their death in battle, had brought about reconciliation and the turning away of God’s wrath. Note in passing how the Maccabees spoke of their martyrs having reconciled God, whereas Paul’s emphasis is upon how God has reconciled&nbsp;<em>us</em>- the change was not of God but of His people.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son</em>- In the argument so far, Paul has talked about justification, declaring us right in a legal sense. Now he talks about us being reconciled- as if the impartial judge becomes personally reconciled to us as we stand in the dock. G:E. Ladd has made the informed comment that the surrounding first century religions didn’t speak of reconciliation, because they didn’t offer nor even conceive of the personal relationship between God and man which Christianity does (3). The need for such personal reconciliation has been implied by Paul earlier, in talking of God’s “wrath” against sin (<em><a href='B:520 1:19-32'>Rom 1:19-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>). So the legal declaring of us as right is going to have a more personal aspect between us and our judge; if we are now justified, His wrath is no more, and we become reconciled on a personal level. Note that Strong defines the Greek for “reconciled” as meaning ‘to change mutually’. This raises the whole question as to whether God in some sense has changed as a result of His relationship with us, just as a person changes when they marry or have a child. Seeing that God “is Spirit” and isn’t therefore static, it would seem to me that there is an element of growth associated with His present nature. Hence we read in the continuous tense of the Father growing to know the Son and vice versa (<em><a href='B:470 11:27'>Mat 11:27</a></em>). This ‘growth’ or change within God Almighty as a result of the supreme God of the cosmos being reconciled to a few specks of dust and water on this tiny planet… is not only awesome of itself, but a testimony to the colossal consequences of the reconciling work of His Son. “Being reconciled” is clearly a state- for <em><a href='B:540 5:18'>2Co 5:18</a></em> likewise rejoices that we have been reconciled to God in Christ, yet <em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em> goes on to appeal to the Corinthians to therefore “be reconciled to God”. This idea of living out in practice who we are by status is perhaps the essence of Paul’s practical appeal throughout Romans:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life</em>- i:e. His resurrection, in that our personal salvation depends upon resurrection from the dead and being given eternal life. This is the significance of our baptism into His death and resurrection. His resurrection, His life, must become ours today:&nbsp;</p><p>We must beware lest our theories of the atonement obscure the connection between salvation and&nbsp;<em>life</em>- both His life and ours. Having been reconciled to God by the death of Jesus, we are “saved by his life” (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>). This is not only a reference to His resurrection. When He died, He outbreathed His breath of life towards His people who stood beneath the cross. His death, and the manner of it, inspires us to live the life which He lived. And this is the eternal kind of life, the life we will eternally live in the Kingdom with Him. His death was not solely the merit that supplies forgiveness. The cross was His life the most fully displayed and triumphant, forever breaking the power of sin over our street-level human existence by what it inspires in us. Our lives, the ordinary minutes and hours of our days, become transformed by His death. For we cannot passively behold Him there, and not respond. We cannot merely mentally assent to correct doctrine about the atonement. It brings forth a life lived; which is exactly why correct understanding of it is so important. We are inspired to engage in His form of life, with all the disciplines of prayer, solitude, simple and sacrificial living, intense study and meditation in the Father’s word which characterized our Lord’s existence. For His cross was the summation of the life He lived. We quite rightly teach new converts the need for attending meetings, giving of time and money to the Lord’s cause, doing good to others, Bible reading. But over and above all these things, response to the cross demands a life seriously modelled upon His life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:11'>Rom 5:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation</em>- It’s not all jam tomorrow, a hope of resurrection from the dead in the future. We joy right now, because through Christ “we have now received the atonement”, s:w. “reconciliation”, the reconciling spoken of in v. 10. The courtroom ‘declaring right’ or innocent goes much further- we become personally set right with the Judge Himself. The whole world has in a sense been reconciled to God, but we are those who have “received” that reconciliation (<em><a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, for that all sinned</em>– This opening word “so” carries much meaning. It is picked up again in <em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em>, the intervening verses being in parenthesis. It almost seems that Adam sinned in order that God’s grace might be the more powerfully revealed.</p><p>In the New Testament we find Paul writing, as a Jew, to both Jews and Gentiles who had converted to Christ, and yet were phased by the huge amount of apostate Jewish literature and ideas which was then floating around. For example, the book of Romans is full of allusions to the "Wisdom of Solomon", alluding and quoting from it, and showing what was right and what was wrong in it. <em>Wis_2:24</em> claimed: "Through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it". And Paul alludes to this, and corrects it, by saying in <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>: ""By one man Adam- not 'the devil' sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This is one of many such examples. Jude does the same thing, quoting and alluding to the apostate Book of Enoch, correcting the wrong ideas, and at times quoting the ideas back against those who used them.</p><p>In the same way as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, Israel at the time of Achan (<em><a href='B:60 7:1'>Jos 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 7:11'>Jos 7:11</a></em>) etc. were reckoned as guilty but were not personally responsible for the sins of others, so the Lord Jesus was reckoned as a sinner on the cross; He was made sin for us, who knew no sin personally (<em><a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a></em>). He carried our sins by His association with us, prefigured by the way in which Israel's sins were transferred to the animal; but He personally was not a sinner because of His association with us:&nbsp; The degree of our guilt by association is hard to measure, but in some sense we sinned "in Adam" (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em> AVmg:) In the context of Romans 5, Paul is pointing an antithesis between imputed&nbsp;<em>sin</em>&nbsp;by association with Adam, and imputed&nbsp;<em>righteousness</em>&nbsp;by association with Christ. In response to the atonement we have experienced, should we not like our Lord be reaching out to touch the lepers, associating ourselves with the weak in order to bring them to salvation- rather than running away from them for fear of 'guilt by association'?&nbsp;</p><p>The difficulty we have in understanding our sinning somehow “in Adam” may be the result of our failure to appreciate the extent of corporate solidarity in Hebrew thinking. This has been documented at great depth in H:W. Robinson,&nbsp;<em>Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel</em>&nbsp;(4). This corporate solidarity (even if “corporate&nbsp;<em>personality</em>” is a bridge too far) doesn’t mean that we personally sinned with Adam or are directly culpable for his sin. Adam is everyman- the Hebrew “adam” means just that, man. The concern expressed by many as to why babies and the mentally unaccountable still die is a valid one, but I don’t think it’s solved by postulating that they sinned “in Adam”. Paul is writing to Christians in Rome, and he is explaining why&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;die. The question of infants isn’t in his purview here. Likewise when he talks about “death” in Romans, he seems to often have in view the second death, the permanent death to be meted out at the judgment seat to&nbsp;those condemned for their sins, rather than ‘death’ in the general sense. Such death, condemnation at the last day, passes upon us all, but all in Adam in this sense are also those who are now in Christ. It is this apparent paradox which can lead to the almost schizophrenic feelings for Christians which Paul explains in Romans 7. The apparent parallel drawn between those “in Adam” and those “in Christ” would suggest that those “in Adam” whom Paul has in view are not every human being, but those now “in Christ” who have also been, and still are in a sense, “in Christ”.</p><p>Paul emphasized that it was by one male, Adam, that sin entered the world (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>)- in designed contrast to the contemporary Jewish idea that Eve was to be demonized as the&nbsp;<em>femme fatale</em>, the woman who brought sin into the world. Thus <em>Sir_25:4</em>: "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die". Paul is alluding to this and insisting quite the opposite- that Adam , the male, was actually the one initially responsible. Paul can hardly be accused of being against women Another example of Paul’s conscious rebellion against the contemporary position of women is to be found in <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin”. This is an intended rebuttal of <em>Sir_25:24</em>: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die”. This allusion is one of many reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as inspired. The idea that women were second class because Eve, not Adam, was the source of sin was widespread. Tertullian (<em>On Female Dress</em>, 1:1) wrote: “You woman are the first deserter of the Divine law… on account of your desert, that is, death, the Son of God had to die”. And Paul is consciously countering that kind of thinking.</p><p>Adam: The First Sinner<br/>The classical view of the fall supposes that as Eve's teeth sunk into the fruit, the first sin was committed, and soon afterwards Adam followed suite, resulting in the curse falling upon humanity. What I want to discuss is whether the eating of the fruit was in fact the first sin. If it was, then Eve sinned first. Straight away, the Bible-minded believer comes up with a problem: the New Testament unmistakably highlights Adam as the first sinner; by&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;transgression sin entered the world (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). So sin was not in the world before&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;transgression. The ground was cursed for the sake of&nbsp;<em>Adam's</em>&nbsp;sin (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). This all suggests that Eve wasn't the first sinner. The fact Eve was deceived into sinning doesn't mean she didn’t sin (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). She was punished for her sin; and in any case, ignorance doesn't mean that sin doesn't count as sin (consider the need for offerings of ignorance under the Law). So, Eve sinned; but Adam was the first sinner, before&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;sin, sin had not entered the world. We must also remember that Eve was deceived by the snake, and on account of this was "(implicated / involved) in the transgression" (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). "The transgression". Which transgression? Surely Adam's (<em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em>); by listening to the snake she became implicated in Adam's sin. The implication is that "the transgression" was already there for her to become implicated in it by listening to the serpent. This is the very opposite to the idea of&nbsp;<em>Adam&nbsp;</em>being implicated in&nbsp;<em>Eve's</em>&nbsp;sin:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>So I want to suggest that in fact the eating of the fruit was not the first sin; it was the final physical consequence of a series of sins, spiritual weakness and sinful attitudes on Adam's part. They were mainly sins of omission rather than commission, and for this reason we tend to not notice them; just as we tend to treat our own sins of omission far less seriously than our sins of commission. What happened in Eden was that the garden was planted, Adam was placed in it, and commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The animals are then brought before him for naming; then he is put into a deep sleep, and Eve is created:&nbsp;<em>Then</em>&nbsp;the&nbsp;very first command Adam and Eve jointly received was to have children, and go out into the whole earth (i:e. out of the Garden of Eden) and subdue it to themselves (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>). The implication is that this command was given as soon as Eve was created. There he was, lying down, with his wife beside him, "a help meet"; literally, 'an opposite one'. And they were commanded to produce seed, and then go out of the garden and subdue the earth. It would have been obvious to him from his observation of the animals that his wife was physiologically and emotionally designed for him to produce seed by. She was designed to be his 'opposite one', and there she was, lying next to him. <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> implies that he should have cleaved to her and become one flesh by reason of the very way in which she was created out of him. And yet he evidently did not have intercourse with her, seeing that they failed to produce children until after the fall. If he had consummated his marriage with her, presumably she would have produced children (this deals a death blow to the fantasies of Adam and Eve having an idyllic sexual relationship in Eden before the fall). Paul saw Eve at the time of her temptation as a virgin (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>). Instead, Adam put off obedience to the command to multiply. There seems an allusion to this in <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>, where Paul says that married couples should come together in intercourse "lest Satan (cp. the serpent) tempt you for your incontinency". Depending how closely one reads Scripture, there may be here the suggestion that Paul saw Adam's mistake in Eden as not 'coming together' with his wife. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>But Adam said something to Eve (as they lay there?). He alone had been commanded not to eat the tree of knowledge. Yet when Eve speaks to the serpent, it is evident that Adam had told her about it, but not very deeply. She speaks of "the tree that is in the midst of the garden" rather than "the tree of knowledge". She had been told by Adam that they must not even touch it, even though this is not what God had told Adam (<em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 3:2-3'>Rom 3:2-3</a></em>). So we are left with the idea that Adam turned to Eve and as it were wagged his finger at her and said 'Now you see that tree over there in the middle,&nbsp;<em>don't you even touch it</em>&nbsp;or else there'll be trouble, O:K:'. She didn’t&nbsp;<em>understand</em>, he didn’t&nbsp;<em>explain</em>&nbsp;that it was forbidden because it was the tree of knowledge, and so she was deceived into eating it- unlike Adam, who understood what he was doing (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). Adam's emphasis was on not&nbsp;<em>committing&nbsp;the</em>&nbsp;sin of eating the fruit; he said nothing to her about the need to multiply and subdue the earth. &nbsp;There are similarities in more conservative Christian groups; e.g. the father or husband who lays the law down about the need for wearing hats without&nbsp;<em>explaining</em>&nbsp;to his wife or daughter&nbsp;<em>why</em>.</p><p>The next we know, Adam and Eve have separated, she is talking to the snake, apparently indifferent to the command to&nbsp;<em>subdue</em>&nbsp;the animals, to be their superiors, rather than listen to them as if they actually had superior knowledge. When the snake questioned: "Yea,&nbsp;<em>hath&nbsp;</em>God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree..." (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>), Eve was in a weak position because Adam hadn't fully told her what God had said. Hence she was deceived, but Adam wasn't. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>So,&nbsp;<em>why</em>&nbsp;didn’t Adam tell her more clearly what God had said? I would suggest that he was disillusioned with the wife God gave him; he didn’t have intercourse with her as he had been asked, he separated from her so that she was alone with the snake. "The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree..." (<em><a href='B:10 3:12'>Gen 3:12</a></em>) seems to reflect more than a hint of resentment against Eve and God’s provision of her. &nbsp;Not only was Adam disillusioned with Eve, but he failed to really take God’s word seriously. Romans 5 describes Adam's failure in a number of parallel ways: "transgression... sin... offence…&nbsp;<em>disobedience</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>)". "Disobedience" translates a Greek word which is uncommon. Strong defines it as meaning 'inattention', coming from a root meaning 'to mishear'. It is the same word translated "neglect to hear" in <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em>. Adam's sin, his transgression, his offence was therefore not eating the fruit in itself; it was disobedience, neglecting to hear. That this neglecting to hear God’s word seriously was at the root of his sin is perhaps reflected in God’s judgment on him: "Because thou hast hearkened unto&nbsp;<em>the voice of thy wife</em>..." rather than&nbsp;<em>God’s&nbsp;</em>voice (<em><a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a></em>). &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>Adam's sin was therefore a neglecting to seriously hear God’s word, a dissatisfaction with and effective rejection of his God-given wife, a selfish unwillingness to leave the garden of Eden and go out and subdue the earth (cp. our natural instincts), and a neglecting of his duty to multiply children in God’s image (cp. preaching and pastoral work). All these things were sins of omission; he may well have reasoned that he would get around to them later. All these wrong attitudes and sins of omission, apparently unnoticed and uncondemned, led to the final folly of eating the fruit: the first sin of commission. And how many of our more public sins are prefaced by a similar process? Truly Adam's sin was the epitome of all our sins. Romans 5 points an antithesis between Adam and Christ. Adam's one act of disobedience which cursed us is set off against Christ's one act of righteousness which blessed us. Yet Christ's one act was not just His death; we are saved by His life too (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>). Christ lived a life of many acts of righteousness and refusal to omit any part of His duty, and crowned it with one public act of righteousness in His death. The implication is that Adam committed a series of disobediences which culminated in one public act of commission: he ate the fruit. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>There are three lines of argument which confirm this picture of what happened in Eden which we have presented. Firstly, Adam and Eve were ashamed at their nakedness. Perhaps this was because they realized what they should have used their sexuality for. Eating the tree of knowledge gave them knowledge of good (i:e. they realized the good they should have done in having children) and also evil (the capacities of their sexual desire?). Adam first called his wife "woman", but after the fall he called her "Eve" because he recognized she was the mother of living ones (<em><a href='B:10 3:20'>Gen 3:20</a></em>). By doing so he seems to be recognizing his failure of not reproducing through her as God had originally asked him. The way they immediately produce a child after the fall is surely an expression of their repentance. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>Secondly, it seems that God punishes sin in a way which is appropriate to the sin. Consider how David so often asks God to take the wicked in their own snare- and how often this happens. The punishment of Adam and Eve was appropriate to the sins they committed. What Adam wasn't bothered to do, i:e. have intercourse with his woman, became the very thing which now every fallen man will sell his soul for. They ate the tree of&nbsp;<em>knowledge</em>, they&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;they were naked, and then Adam&nbsp;<em>knew</em>&nbsp;Eve (<em><a href='B:10 4:1'>Gen 4:1</a></em>); this chain of connection certainly suggests that sexual desire, whilst not wrong in itself, was part of the result of eating the tree. There is an artless poetic justice and appropriacy in this which seems simply Divine. What they couldn't be bothered to do became the very thing which has probably generated more sin and desire to do than anything else. Adam was to rule over Eve as a result of the fall- the very thing he wasn't bothered to do. Eve's punishment was that her desire was for her husband- perhaps suggesting that she too had no desire for Adam sexually, and therefore was willing to delay obedience to the command to multiply. They were both driven out of the garden- perhaps reflecting how they should have left the garden in obedience to God’s command to go out and subdue the natural creation to themselves. Because Adam wasn't bothered to do this, even when it was within his power, therefore nature was given a special power against man which he would never be able to overcome, and which would eventually defeat him (<em><a href='B:10 3:17-19'>Gen 3:17-19</a></em>). This all shows the logic of obedience; we will be made to pay the price of obedience even if we disobey- therefore it is logical to obey:&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>Thirdly, there seems evidence that the eating of the fruit happened very soon after their creation. Eve hadn't seen the tree before the serpent pointed it out to her (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); and consider that they could eat of all the trees, but not of the tree of knowledge. But what about the tree of life? This wasn't forbidden, and yet had they eaten of it, they would have lived for ever. We are told that this tree brings forth fruit every month (<em><a href='B:730 22:2'>Rev 22:2</a></em>); so presumably it had not fruited, implying the fall was within the first month after creation:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The practical outcome of what happened in Eden is that we are to see in Adam's sin an epitome of our essential weaknesses. And how accurate it is. His failure was principally due to sins of omission, of delaying to do God’s will because it didn’t take his fancy. Time and again Biblical history demonstrates that sins of silence and omission are just as fatal as sins of public, physical commission (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 20:16'>Gen 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 38:10'>Gen 38:10</a></em>). To omit to hate evil is the same as to commit it (<em><a href='B:230 36:4'>Psa 36:4</a></em>). Because David omitted to enforce the Law's requirements concerning the transport of the tabernacle, a man died. His commission of good didn’t outweigh his omission here (<em><a href='B:130 15:13'>1Ch 15:13</a></em>). The Jews were condemned by the Lord for building the sepulchres of the prophets without erecting a placard stating that their fathers had killed them. We have a debt to preach to the world; we are their debtors, and yet this isn't how we often see it (<em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>). Israel sinned not only by worshipping idols but by thereby omitting to worship God as He required (<em><a href='B:90 8:8'>1Sa 8:8</a></em>). Adam stayed in the garden rather than go out to subdue the earth. Our equivalent is our spiritual selfishness, our refusal to look outside of ourselves into the world of others. Because things like disinterest in preaching or inattention to subduing our animal instincts are sins of&nbsp;<em>omission</em>&nbsp;rather than commission, we too tend to overlook them. We effectively neglect to hear God’s word, although like Adam we may make an appearance of half-heartedly teaching it to others. And even when we do this, like Adam we tend to focus on&nbsp;<em>avoidal of committing sin&nbsp;</em>rather than examining ourselves for the likelihood of&nbsp;<em>omission</em>, not least in our lack of spiritual&nbsp;<em>responsibility</em>&nbsp;for others. Because of his spiritual laziness, Adam's sin led Eve into deception and thereby sin, and brought suffering on untold billions. His sin is the epitome of ours. So let us really realize: none of us sins or is righteous unto ourselves. There are colossal ramifications of our every sin and our every act of righteousness on others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:13'>Rom 5:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For until the law sin was in the world</em>- This could be Paul’s way of countering the objection that his teaching that it was the Law of Moses which brought condemnation (<em><a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a></em>) wrongly implied that there could have been no death before the Law:&nbsp;</p><p><em><br/>But sin is not imputed when there is no law</em>- We do not have to appear at the day of judgment and answer for our sin if we didn’t know God’s Law, and we broke it in ignorance. Sin is not therefore imputed to those who are not under law, for whom effectively there is no such law.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression</em>- Paul is demonstrating that the whole world is under sin, even those who don’t know God’s law. They die because they themselves sin, albeit in ignorance, and because of their relation to Adam. He’s building up the picture of every single human being as having a desperate need for forgiveness and finding the answer in Jesus- who therefore is the Saviour designed and intended for all people, not just Jews.</p><p><em>Who is a figure of him that was to come</em>- A phrase the Jewish writings used about Moses, but which Paul tellingly reapplies to the Lord Jesus (5). Paul’s letter is densely packed with allusions to Jewish writings- and this explains some of the apparently awkward grammatical constructions and some of the otherwise strange phrases, often using words and concepts which don’t occur in the rest of Paul’s writings. Instead of spilling ink trying to exactly understand some of the phrases in Romans- and this letter has produced more tortuous, unhelpful, highly abstracted commentary than any other- it may be wiser to assume that those difficult passages are in fact allusions to extant Jewish writings or thinking contemporary with Paul, which at present we are unaware of:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift</em>- This begins an extended comparison and contrast between the results of Adam’s sin and disobedience, and the grace s:w. “free gift” given as a result of Christ’s obedience. This is all in demonstration of the comment in <em><a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a></em> that Adam- or more specifically, “Adam’s transgression”- was a type of the Lord Jesus. The type works not only by similarity but by inverse contrasts. By doing so, we see how God rejoices in showing grace, almost playing intellectual games to demonstrate how much greater and more abundant is His grace than the power of sin. And this is done in order to persuade us, the doubting readership, of the simple reality- that His grace is for real, and we really will be and are saved and secure in Christ.</p><p><em>For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ</em>- The point of similarity here is that just one person can affect many. We may doubt that the obedience of one man, the Lord Jesus, 2000 years ago, can really have much to do with you and me today. That it all happened, I don’t think we seriously doubt any more than we doubt standard historical facts. But a man hanging on a stake of wood on a Friday afternoon, on a day in April, just outside a Middle Eastern city… can He really do anything for all of us here today? We may never articulate it, say it in so many words. But that is at least our unspoken, unverbalized, unformulated, under the bedcovers nagging doubt, the bane of our deepest spiritual psychology, the fear of our soul, the cloud that comes betwixt as we look up at the steely silence of the skies, or gaze at the ceiling rose as we lay upon our bed. Paul tackles that doubt (and Romans 1-8 is really a tackling of human doubts about God’s grace) by quoting the example of Adam. Through ‘just’ one, death and suffering affected many. If Adam is proof enough of ‘the power of one’- then how much more is Jesus?</p><p><em>Abound to the many</em>- The Greek means to superabound, to be lavished, to be poured out in over abundance:&nbsp; The “gift” which so abounds is surely a reference to the language of <em><a href='B:470 25:29'>Mat 25:29</a></em>, where at the final judgment, he that has shall be given to yet more, “in abundance” s:w:. Yet our receipt of that grace in this life is a foretaste of that superabundance we are yet to receive. Superabundant generosity characterizes God. We note that when the Lord multiplied the loaves and fishes, there superabounded 12 full baskets and then seven full baskets (<em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:37'>Mat 15:37</a></em>). Why the apparent over creation of food? For what purpose was there such waste? Why is the same strange word for superabundance used both times? And why is it used in&nbsp;<em>three of the four Gospels&nbsp;</em>when this incident is recorded (<em><a href='B:490 9:17'>Luk 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:12-13'>Joh 6:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:20'>Mat 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:37'>Mat 15:37</a></em>)? Surely to give us the impression of the lavishing of God’s gift, His grace, when He provides for His children. We have experienced the same from Him, and should be like this towards others. Paul often uses the word in 2 Corinthians in appealing for generosity to poorer brethren; he speaks of how God’s grace has superabounded, and how we also ought to superabound in kindness and generosity to others (<em><a href='B:540 9:8'>2Co 9:8</a></em>). We will eternally know the truth and reality of all this, because we will not only be given eternal life, but life “more abundantly” (<em><a href='B:500 10:10'>Joh 10:10</a></em>). We must ask ourselves to what extent we show that same quality of super abundant grace to others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:16'>Rom 5:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This gift is unlike the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment came because of one man to condemnation</em>- The result of the legal case, the final verdict. This is contrasted with “the gift”, as if the judge hands down the verdict but then profers us the gift of being declared right. The verdict can mean at times the actual execution of the punishment (as in <em><a href='B:520 2:2-3'>Rom 2:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:8'>Rom 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:34'>1Co 11:34</a></em>). In this sense, we were actually condemned- not threatened with it and let off.</p><p><em>But the free gift came out of many trespasses to justification</em>-&nbsp;<em>Dikaioma,&nbsp;</em>s:w. “righteousness”. The free gift of salvation apart from our works actually inspires righteousness- performed in gratitude for salvation, rather than in order to attain salvation. Or we could still read the word as referring to a decree which counts us as right, reversing that of condemnation:&nbsp;</p><p>The contrast is between the one man who brought the verdict of condemnation upon many, by one sin for Adam is everyman- and the one man, Jesus, who brought the verdict of being declared right for many people who had committed many sins. The paradox is that ‘just’ one sin lead to the condemnation of mankind, but our many sins lead to us being declared right- by grace. The reasoning here indirectly suggests that Christ was also “a man” as Adam- and certainly not a god:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned on account of the one man</em>- This again highlights the superabundance of the grace received. By Adam’s sin, we became reigned over by death; by Christ, we sinners, we who are like Adam, not only become free from death and shall live eternally, but we shall “reign”, as rulers in God’s future Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 19:19'>Luk 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em>). Note the contrast so far in these verses is between Adam and Christ, and between Adam’s sin and… Christ. We expect the connection to be between Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness and obedience. This is the connection made later, but for now, we simply read of Christ as the counterpart to both Adam and Adam’s sin. It wasn’t so much one act of obedience which countered Adam’s one sin; rather was it a life lived, a character developed, a person, rather than a single act of obedience, as perhaps implied by the legalism of Judaism, whereby one sin could be cancelled out by an act of obedience. The reality however is that Adam’s one sin was no mere casual infringement which had no significant consequence- ‘just’ one sin leads to all the death and suffering which Adam’s sin brought. Our sins are to be understood in the same way. Adam must have held his head in his hands as he stood somewhere eastward in Eden, and sobbed to the effect “My God, what have I done…”, and from tear filmed eyes looked out upon a creation starting to buckle and wrinkle. If we accept Paul’s point that Adam is everyman <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>, that whilst we suffer because of what he did, this is because we would have done the same if in his shoes… then we will feel the same for our falls, our slips, our rebellions, our sins.</p><p><em>Much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life on account of the one man, Jesus Christ</em>- For the Macedonians “the abundance of their joy…&nbsp;abounded unto the riches of their liberality” (<em><a href='B:540 8:2'>2Co 8:2</a></em>). Their joy for what the Lord had done for them, for the “abundance” s:w. of His grace and giving to them (<em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>), led to their giving to the poor.<br/>Throughout Romans 5, Paul makes a seamless connection between the reign of God’s grace now, and our future reigning in the literal Kingdom of God to be established materially upon earth at the Lord's return: Grace reigns&nbsp;<em>unto&nbsp;</em>eternal life, i:e. the result of the reign of grace now is eternal life in the future (<em><a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a></em>)... and thus "the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness in life&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;reign through the one, Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>). Elsewhere, Paul clearly understands the idea of future reigning as a reference to our ruling in the future Kingdom of God. This is a very real and wonderful hope which we have, and is indeed part of the Gospel. "Israel" means something like 'God rules' (<em><a href='B:10 32:22-28'>Gen 32:22-28</a></em>); His people are those over whom He rules. We therefore are under His Kingdom now, if we accept Christ as King over our lives.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a></em> draws a parallel between Adam's sin and ours. His tragedy, his desperation, as he looked at his body, at his wife, with new vision; as his wide eyes wandered in tragedy around the garden: all who fall are in that position, eagerly reaching out to the clothing of the slain lamb.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then. As through one act of sin the judgment came to all men to condemnation, even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came to all men to justification of life</em>- This verse could be ended with an exclamation mark and be read as a summary, exclaimed in joy and wonder, of the preceding argument. “Justification of life” could be a legal term concerning how a person condemned to death has received “life” through being declared right:&nbsp;</p><p>Perhaps we feel that our preaching somehow lacks a sense of power and compulsion of others. Try explicitly telling them about the cross. The apostles recounted the fact of the cross and on this basis appealed for people to be baptized into that death and resurrection. There is an impelling power, an imperative, in the wonder and shame of it all. Joseph saw the Lord’s dead body and was compelled to offer for that body to be laid where&nbsp;<em>his&nbsp;</em>dead body should have laid. In essence, he lived out the message of baptism. He wanted to identify his body with that of the Lord. He realized that the man Christ Jesus was truly his representative. And so he wanted to identify with Him. And properly presented, this will be the power of response to the preaching of the cross today. “Through one act of righteousness the cross the free gift came unto all men to justification of life" (<em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em>)- yet “all men" only receive that justification if they hear this good news and believe it. This is why we must take the Gospel “unto all men" (surely an allusion to the great commission)- so that, in that sense, the wondrous cross of Christ will have been the more ‘worthwhile’. Through our preaching, yet more of those “all men" who were potentially enabled to live for ever will indeed do so. This is why the Acts record so frequently connects the preaching of the cross with men’s belief. Negatively, men do not believe if they reject the “report" of the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:500 12:38-39'>Joh 12:38-39</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as through the one man's disobedience-&nbsp;</em>Adam's sin of commission (i:e. eating the fruit) may well have been a result of his sins of omitting to go forth out of the centre of the garden and multiply. By one man's inattention (<em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em> Gk:) sin came into the world.</p><p><em>The many were made sinners</em>- Gk. ‘to appoint, ordain’. It’s not that we as innocent people which we are not anyway were turned into sinners because someone else sinned, far away and long ago. Rather were “all men”- and Paul uses this term to emphasize how Jew and Gentile are in the same position- put into the category of Adam, of sinners, of guilty, of flesh. But the good news is that there can be a category change- if we can be “made sinners” we can likewise be made righteous:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Even so through the obedience of the one man shall the many be made righteous</em>- A reference to the crucifixion, or to a life of obedience? Significantly, Paul writes in Romans of baptism as being “obedience” (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:16-17'>Rom 6:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:26'>Rom 16:26</a></em>, also <em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>). It’s as if by obeying the command to die with Him by baptism into His death, we are associating with His actual obedience to death in the cross. The Lord spoke of having been given a specific “command” by the Father to die on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em>), which would encourage us to interpret His “obedience” here as His obedience to death on the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the law was added to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace increased all the more</em>- “Was added / entered” is s:w. only <em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>, where the Judaizers ‘sneaked in’ to the church. Why exactly Paul uses such a word isn’t altogether clear to me, nor to any of the many expositors I’ve read.</p><p>In the context, “the trespass” singular refers to the specific sin of Adam- “the offence of the one man” (<em><a href='B:520 5:18'>Rom 5:18</a></em>). The Law was intended on one hand to bring life (<em><a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a></em>); it was “holy, just and good”. But the effect of it in practice was to accentuate sin, and this result of human failure was also somehow under the overall hand of God. He on the one hand cannot be held guilty of leading men into sin by creating the concept of Divine law; for that Law which He gave was ordained to bring life. Yet He worked with and through human weakness, so that in the bigger picture, the result was that the Law convicted men of their sin&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;God’s grace could superabound, abound yet more than sin abounded. God uses sin, and doesn’t just turn away from human failure in disgust; and in this we see a huge lesson for ourselves, we who are confronted on all sides by serious human failure. &nbsp;<br/>Paul knew the ‘abounding’ aspect of the Father, when he wrote of how God does exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think (<em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>). How many times have we found that we prayed for one thing, and God gave us something so very much better?&nbsp; I see a kind of similarity with the way that God brought in the Law “that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly” (<em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>). God set up a situation in order that in due time, He could lavish His grace the more. One almost wonders whether this is one of the reasons why God allowed the whole concept of sin to exist at all. After all, the God of boundless possibilities surely had ways to achieve His ends without having to allow a concept like sin in the first place. Seeing there is no personal Satan, the intellectual origin of the concept of sin surely lies with God. And perhaps He chose this simply as a way of being better able to express His amazing grace and love to sinners. Having lambasted Israel for their sins and described in detail their coming judgment, God then makes a strange comment, apparently out of context with what He has just been saying: “And therefore will Yahweh wait, that he may be gracious unto you; and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for Yahweh is a God of justice; blessed are all they that wait for him” (<em><a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a></em>). God appears to be saying that He delays His actions, that He brings judgment, that He sets Himself&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;far above us- just so that He can get to show yet more mercy to us. Perhaps Joseph was manifesting God in the way he worked out that slow and detailed scheme of dealing with his sinful brethren... it has always seemed to me that he drew out the process just so that he could lead up to a climax of pouring out his maximum grace to them. Whilst the way seems long, “blessed are all they that wait for him”. God is even spoken of as concluding (Gk. ‘shutting up the eyes’) of Israel in the sin of unbelief, “that he might have mercy” upon both them and the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em>).</p><p>Romans and the&nbsp;<em>Wisdom of Solomon</em><br/>Seeing Romans 1-8 is Paul’s inspired exposition of the nature of sin and the Gospel, it’s surely surprising that he makes no mention of the words Satan or Devil, let alone ‘fallen Angel’. He lays the blame for sin quite clearly upon us and our weakness in the face of internal temptation. And Paul speaks of the Genesis account of the fall of Adam and Eve as if he accepted it just as it is written – he makes no attempt to say that the serpent was a Lucifer or fallen Angel. In fact, closer analysis shows that Paul is consciously rebutting the contemporary Jewish ideas about these things as found in&nbsp;<em>The Wisdom of Solomon</em>&nbsp;and other writings. We must remember that in the first century, there was no canonized list of books comprising the “Old Testament” as we now know it. There was therefore a great need to deconstruct the uninspired Jewish writings which were then circulating – hence the many allusions to them in the inspired New Testament writings, in order to help the Jewish believers understand that these writings were uninspired and to be rejected.</p><p>The flood of apostate Jewish literature in the first century and just before it all have much to say about Adam’s sin (e.g. the&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse of Baruch</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse of Abraham</em>), and I submit that Paul writes of Adam’s sin in order to deconstruct these wrong interpretations. <em>Wis_2:24</em> claimed: “Through the Devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it”. This is actually the first reference to the idea that a being called ‘the Devil’ envied Adam and Eve and therefore this brought about their temptation and fall. Paul rebuts this by saying that “By one man Adam – not ‘the Devil’ sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (<em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>). This is evidently an allusion by Paul to this wrong idea – and he corrects it. The allusion becomes all the more legitimate when we appreciate that actually Paul is alluding to the&nbsp;<em>Wisdom of Solomon</em>&nbsp;throughout his letter to the Romans. This book glorified the Jewish people, making them out to be righteous, blaming sin on the Devil and the Gentiles. By way of allusion to it, Paul shows how the Jews are de-emphasizing sin, not facing up to the fact that all of humanity are under the curse of sin and death, and all therefore need salvation in Christ. This same basic emphasis upon personal responsibility, not blaming others for our sins, not seeing ourselves as pure and everyone else as the problem, is just as relevant today – surrounded as we are by false theologies that make us out to be basically pure, shifting all blame onto a ‘Devil’ of their own fabrication. It should be noted that this way of alluding to contemporary writings and correcting them is common throughout Scripture – I’ve elsewhere given examples of where Jude and Peter do this in relation to the Book of Enoch, and how Genesis 1-3 does this with the views of creation and origins which were common at the time the book of Genesis was compiled.</p><p>Wisdom of Solomon 13–14 criticizes the Gentiles for idolatry and sexual immorality. And Paul criticizes the Gentiles for just the same things in <em><a href='B:520 1:19-27'>Rom 1:19-27</a></em> – in language which clearly alludes to the Wisdom of Solomon. It’s as if Paul is reviewing the Wisdom of Solomon and placing a tick by what is right (e.g., that Gentiles are indeed guilty of idolatry and immorality), and a cross by what is wrong in the book. E:P. Sanders has observed: “<em><a href='B:520 1:18-32'>Rom 1:18-32</a></em> is very close to the Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish book written in Egypt. Paul’s reference to ‘images representing... birds, animals or reptiles’ (<em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em>) points to... Egypt. Birds, animals and reptiles were idolized in Egypt, but not commonly in the rest of the Graeco–Roman world” (E:P. Sanders,&nbsp;<em>Paul</em>&nbsp;(Oxford: O:U:P:, 1996) p. 113). The point of the reference to these things would therefore simply be because Paul is alluding to, almost quoting, the Wisdom of Solomon.</p><p>Paul’s Other Allusions to the Wisdom of Solomon<br/>Having spoken of how “the destroyer” destroyed the Egyptian firstborn, Wisdom 18 goes on to speak of how this same “destroyer” tried to kill Israel in the wilderness, but the evil “destroyer” was stopped by Moses: “For then the blameless man made haste, and stood forth to defend them; and bringing the shield of his proper ministry, even prayer, and the propitiation of incense, set himself against the wrath, and so brought the calamity to an end, declaring that he was thy servant. So he overcame the destroyer, not with strength of body, nor force of arms, but with a word subdued him that punished, alleging the oaths and covenants made with the fathers (<em>Wis_18:21-22</em>). Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 alludes to this – showing that “the destroyer” was sent by God to punish Israel’s sins. The author of Wisdom speaks as if “the destroyer” is some evil being victimizing Israel – and Paul appears to correct that, showing that it was the same “Destroyer” Angel who protected Israel in Egypt who later slew the wicked amongst them. Wisdom 19 makes out that all sins of Israel in the wilderness were committed by Gentiles travelling with them – but Paul’s account of Israel’s history in 1 Corinthians 10 makes it clear that&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;sinned and were punished.</p><p>It should be noted in passing that <em><a href='B:530 10:1-4'>1Co 10:1-4</a></em> also alludes to the Jewish legend that the rock which gave water in <em><a href='B:40 21:16-18'>Num 21:16-18</a></em> somehow followed along behind the people of Israel in the wilderness to provide them with water. Paul is not at all shy to allude to or quote Jewish legends, regardless of their factual truth, in order to make a point as well as to deconstruct them. God Himself is not so primitive as to seek to ‘cover Himself’ as it were by only alluding to true factual history in His word; He so wishes dialogue with people that He appears quite happy for His word to refer to their mistaken ideas, in order to enter into dialogue and engagement with them in terms which they are comfortable with. Another example of allusion to Jewish legend is in <em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>, where the Lord Jesus speaks of giving His people “of the hidden manna” – referring to the myth that Jeremiah had hidden a golden jar of manna in the Holy of Holies at the destruction of the temple in 586 BC, which then ascended to Heaven and is to return with Messiah. Jesus doesn’t correct that myth – He as it were runs with it and uses it as a symbol to describe the reward He will bring. He adds no footnote to the effect ‘Now do understand, this is myth, that jar never really ascended to Heaven nor will it come floating back through the skies one day’. Perhaps this is why the New Testament often quotes the Septuagint text, even where it incorrectly renders the Hebrew original – because God is not so paranoid as to feel bound to only deal in the language of strictly literal truths. If first century people were familiar with the Septuagint, even if is a poor translation of the Hebrew original in places – well OK, God was willing to run with that&nbsp;<em>in order to engage with people in their language</em>. And this approach is very helpful in seeking to understand some of the Biblical references to incorrect ideas about Satan and demons.</p><p>It seems to me that Paul’s allusion to wrong Jewish ideas in order to deconstruct them is actually a hallmark of his inspired writing. Ecclesiasticus is another such Jewish writing which he targets in Romans; <em><a href='B:520 4:1-8'>Rom 4:1-8</a></em> labours the point that Abraham was declared righteous by faith and not by the Law, which was given after Abraham’s time; the covenant promises to Abraham were an expression of grace, and the ‘work’ of circumcision was done&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;receiving them. All this appears to be in purposeful allusion to the words of <em>Sir_44:21</em>: “Abraham kept the law of the Most High, and was taken into covenant with Him”.</p><br/><p>Allusions From Paul’s Letter to The Romans to The Wisdom of Solomon</p><table><tr><td></p><p>The Wisdom of Solomon</td><td>Romans</td><td>Comment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_4:5</em> The imperfect branches shall be broken off, their fruit unprofitable, not ripe to eat, yea, meet for nothing concerning the Gentiles and those in Israel who sinned.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 11:17-20'>Rom 11:17-20</a></em></td><td>Israel as an entire nation were the broken off branches; Gentile believers through faith in Christ could become ingrafted branches.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_1:13</em> For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>; Romans 5, 7</td><td>Death is “the judgment of God” – death does come from God. It doesn’t come from “the Devil”. It was God in Genesis who ‘made’ death. Death comes from our sin, that’s Paul’s repeated message – death isn’t something made by the ‘Devil’ just for the wicked.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_1:14</em> For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: in the context of the earth / land of Israel</td><td>Romans 1, 5, 7</td><td>Paul makes many allusions to these words. He shows that all humanity, including Israel, the dwellers upon the earth / land of Israel, are subject to sin and death. Paul argues against the position that God made man good but the Devil messed things up – rather does he place the blame upon individual human sin.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_8:20</em> I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.</td><td>Romans 3, 7</td><td>As a result of Adam’s sin, our bodies aren’t “undefiled” – we will die, we are born with death sentences in us. “There is none good” (<em><a href='B:520 3:12'>Rom 3:12</a></em>); “in my flesh dwells no good thing” (<em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_10:15</em> She delivered the righteous people and blameless seed from the nation that oppressed them.</td><td>Romans 9-11</td><td>Israel were&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;blameless; “there is none righteous, not one” (<em><a href='B:520 3:10'>Rom 3:10</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:10</em> But executing thy judgments upon them by little and little, thou gavest them place of repentance</td><td><em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em></td><td>“Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). Paul’s argument is that it is God’s grace in not immediately punishing us as we deserve which should lead us to repentance.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wisdom 12 raves against the Canaanite nations in the land, saying how wicked they were and stressing Israel’s righteousness – e.g. <em>Wis_12:11</em> For it was a cursed seed from the beginning; neither didst thou for fear of any man give them pardon for those things wherein they sinned.</td><td>Romans 1, 2, 9-11</td><td>Paul uses the very same language about the wickedness of Israel</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:12</em> For who shall say, What hast thou done? or who shall withstand thy judgment? or who shall accuse thee for the nations that perish, whom thou made? or who shall come to stand against thee, to be revenged for the unrighteous men?</td><td><em><a href='B:520 8:30-39'>Rom 8:30-39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:19'>Rom 9:19</a></em></td><td><em>Wisdom&nbsp;</em>marvels at how God judged the wicked Canaanites. But Paul reapplies this language to marvel at God’s mercy in saving the faithful remnant of Israel by grace. Paul’s answer to “Who shall accuse thee Israel?” is that only those in Christ have now no accuser (<em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:13</em> uses the phrase “condemned at the day of the righteous judgment of God” about the condemnation of the Canaanite tribes.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em></td><td>Paul stresses that&nbsp;<em>Israel&nbsp;</em>will be condemned at the “day of the righteous judgment of God” (<em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:22</em> Therefore, whereas thou dost chasten us, thou scourgest our enemies a thousand times more, to the intent that, when we judge, we should carefully think of thy goodness, and when we ourselves are judged, we should look for mercy.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 2:1-4'>Rom 2:1-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:28'>Rom 11:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em></td><td>Paul says that Israel are the “enemies” (<em><a href='B:520 11:28'>Rom 11:28</a></em>); and that judging is outlawed for those who are themselves sinners. Paul’s case is that we receive mercy at the judgment because we have shown mercy rather than judgment to others.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_13:1</em> Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is.</td><td>Romans 1, 10</td><td><em>Wisdom</em>’s implication is that the Gentiles are vain by nature, but Israel aren’t, because they aren’t ignorant of God, and see Him reflected in the “good things” of His creation. Paul contradicts this. He says that&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>humanity is “vain... by nature”; Israel are “ignorant of God” (<em><a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a></em>); and it is believers in Christ who perceive God from the things which He has made. Indeed, it is Israel who are now “without excuse” because they refuse to see “the goodness of God” cp. “good things” in the things which He has created (<em><a href='B:520 1:20-30'>Rom 1:20-30</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_12:26</em> But they that would not be reformed by that correction, wherein he dallied with them, shall feel a judgment worthy of God:&nbsp;<br/><em>Wis_12:27</em> For, look, for what things they grudged, when they were punished, that is, for them whom they thought to be gods; now being punished in them, when they saw it, they acknowledged him to be the true God, whom before they denied to know: and therefore came extreme damnation upon them.</td><td>Romans 1</td><td>It is&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;and all who continue in sin who are worthy of judgment (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>). It was&nbsp;<em>Israel</em>&nbsp;who changed the true God into what they claimed to be gods (<em><a href='B:520 1:20-26'>Rom 1:20-26</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_13:5-8</em>: For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen. But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant in his works they search him diligently, and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen. Howbeit neither are they to be pardoned.</td><td>Romans 1, 2</td><td>It is Gentile Christians who ‘found’ God (<em><a href='B:520 10:20'>Rom 10:20</a></em>). It was they who were led by the beauty of God’s creation to be obedient to Him in truth (<em><a href='B:520 2:14-15'>Rom 2:14-15</a></em>). It was Israel who failed to ‘clearly see’ the truth of God from the things which He created (<em><a href='B:520 1:20'>Rom 1:20</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_14:8</em> But that which is made with hands is cursed, as well it, as he that made it: he, because he made it; and it, because, being corruptible, it was called god.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em></td><td>It was Israel who changed the glory of the true God into images made by their hands and called them gods (<em><a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_14:9</em> For the ungodly and his ungodliness are both alike hateful unto God.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em></td><td>Paul argues that Christ died for the ungodly before they knew Him (<em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>); God justifies the ungodly not by their works but by their faith (<em><a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_14:31</em> For it is not the power of them by whom they swear: but it is the just vengeance of sinners, that punisheth always the offence of the ungodly.</td><td>Romans 5</td><td>Paul argues that the offence of man is met by God’s grace in Christ, and not dealt with by God through taking out vengeance against sinners. It was the “offence” of Adam which was used by God’s grace to forge a path to human salvation (<em><a href='B:520 5:15-20'>Rom 5:15-20</a></em>). As “the offence” abounded, so therefore did God’s grace (<em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_15:2</em> For if we Israel sin, we are thine, knowing thy power: but we will not sin, knowing that we are counted thine.</p><p><em>Wis_15:3</em> For to know thee is perfect righteousness: yea, to know thy power is the root of immortality.</td><td>Romans 3</td><td>Paul argues that we&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;sin – it’s not a case of ‘we don’t sin, because we are God’s people’ (<em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>). And knowledge isn’t the basis for immortality, rather this is the gift of God by grace (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>). Paul leaves us in no doubt that there’s no question of “<em>if</em>&nbsp;we sin”; for we are all desperate sinners, Jew and Gentile alike (<em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>). And our sin really does separate us from God and from His Son; we are “none of His” if we sin (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em> – cp. “we are thine”). We are not automatically “his... even if we sin”. Paul speaks of how both Jew and Gentile are equally under sin; whereas<em>&nbsp;Wisdom</em>&nbsp;claims that there’s a difference: “While therefore thou dost chasten us, thou scourgest our enemies i:e. the Gentiles ten thousand times more” (12:22).</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><p><em>Wis_15:7</em> For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.</td><td><em><a href='B:520 9:21-30'>Rom 9:21-30</a></em></td><td><em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;mocks the potter for making idols – Paul shows that God is the potter and Israel the clay, and they will be discarded like an idol. For they became like that which they worshipped. Paul uses the same language as&nbsp;<em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;here – he speaks of how the Divine potter uses “the same clay to make different types of vessels.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wisdom 15 often laments that the Gentiles worship the created more than the creator</td><td>Romans 1, 2</td><td>Romans 1, 2 make the point, using this same language, that Israel as well as the Gentiles are guilty of worshipping the created more than creator</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_18:8</em> For wherewith thou didst punish our adversaries, by the same thou didst glorify us, whom thou hadst called.</td><td>cp. <em><a href='B:520 8:30'>Rom 8:30</a></em></td><td>The “us” who have been “called” and are to be “glorified” are those in Christ – not those merely born Jews.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><em>Wis_18:13</em> For whereas they would not believe anything by reason of the enchantments; upon the destruction of the firstborn, they acknowledged this people to be the sons of God.</td><td>cp. <em><a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a></em></td><td>The true “sons of God” are those in Christ, the Son of God; for not those who merely call themselves “Israel” are the children of God, as&nbsp;<em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;wrongly argues (<em><a href='B:520 9:6'>Rom 9:6</a></em>)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>As for the ungodly, wrath came upon them without mercy unto the end: for he knew before what they would do... For the destiny, whereof they were worthy, drew them unto this end, and made them forget the things that had already happened, that they might fulfil the punishment which was wanting to their torments” (<em>Wis_19:1</em>; <em>Wis_19:4</em>)</td><td></td><td>What&nbsp;<em>Wisdom</em>&nbsp;says about the Gentile world and Egypt, Paul applies to Israel in their sinfulness. And he stresses many times that the result of sin is death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>), not “torments” in the way the Jews understood them. “Wrath... without mercy” is a phrase Paul uses about the coming condemnation of those Jews who refused to accept Christ (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>). Paul uses the idea of foreknowledge which occurs here in<em>Wisdom</em>, but uses it in Romans 9, 11 to show that foreknowledge is part of the grace of God’s predestination of His true people to salvation. It is the Jews who reject Christ who are “worthy” of death (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>) – not the Gentile world. No wonder the Jews so hated Paul</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that as sin reigned with the result of death</em>- Or, Gk:,&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;death. We have changed masters and also changed our Kings. Our status has changed, but we must still try to live out that status change in practice- hence “let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it” (<em><a href='B:520 6:12'>Rom 6:12</a></em>). Grace reigns as King right now, in that Christ reigns- and thereby we are right now in the sphere of His Kingdom:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Even so might grace reign through righteousness with the result of eternal life-through Jesus Christ our Lord</em>- In that God’s grace operates through the ‘mechanism’ of God and Christ’s righteousness being counted to us, so that we are counted as righteous, justified. And this comes to its ultimate term in physical, literal terms in our being given eternal life at the final judgment.</p><p>Grace, and the forgiveness it brings, reigns as a King (<em><a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a></em>), in the sense that the real belief that by grace we are and will be saved, will bring forth a changed life (<em><a href='B:630 2:11-12'>Tit 2:11-12</a></em>). The wonder of grace will mean that our lives become focused upon Jesus, the one who enabled that grace. Grace will be the leading and guiding principle in our lives, comprised as they are of a long string of thoughts and actions. And as with every truly focused life, literally&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>other things become therefore and thereby of secondary value. The pathway of persistent, focused prayer, the power of the hope of glory in the Kingdom, regular repentance… day by day our desires are redirected towards the things of God:&nbsp;</p><p>You cannot have abstract diabolism; the evil desires that are in a man’s heart cannot exist separately from a man; therefore ‘the Devil’ is personified. Sin is often personified as a ruler (e.g. <em><a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:13-14'>Rom 7:13-14</a></em>). It is understandable, therefore, that the ‘Devil’ is also personified, seeing that ‘the Devil’ also refers to sin. In the same way, Paul speaks of us having two beings, as it were, within our flesh (<em><a href='B:520 7:15-21'>Rom 7:15-21</a></em>): the man of the flesh, ‘the Devil’, fights with the man of the spirit. Yet it is evident that there are not two literal, personal beings fighting within us.</p><p>Paul makes a seamless connection between the reign of God’s grace now, and our future reigning in the literal Kingdom of God to be established materially upon earth at the Lord's return: Grace reigns&nbsp;<em>unto&nbsp;</em>eternal life, i:e. the result of the reign of grace now is eternal life in the future (<em><a href='B:520 5:21'>Rom 5:21</a></em>)... and thus "the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness in this life&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;reign through the one, Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>). The idea is that if grace reigns in our lives, then we will reign in the future Kingdom.</p><p>Notes&nbsp;<br/>(1) Dorothee Sölle,&nbsp;<em>Christ The Representative</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 1967) p. 69.<br/>(2) W:F. Arndt and F:W. Gingrich,&nbsp;<em>A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament</em>&nbsp;(Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1957).<br/>(3) G:E. Ladd,&nbsp;<em>A Theology of the New Testament</em>&nbsp;(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 ed:) pp. 450-456.<br/>(4) H:W. Robinson,&nbsp;<em>Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel</em>. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).<br/>(5) For documentation see Robin Scroggs<em>, The</em>&nbsp;<em>Last Adam</em>:&nbsp;<em>A Study in Pauline Anthropology&nbsp;</em>(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966) pp. 80,81.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:1'>Rom 6:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?</em>- Paul says he had been slanderously accused of teaching this (<em><a href='B:520 3:8'>Rom 3:8</a></em>). He’s here not only answering that false charge, but more positively, analysing what our response should be to the great grace in which we now stand. In doing so, he expounds in more detail how we come to that position of being “in Christ”, what “the obedience of faith” means in practice. And he’s quite clear that this faith in Christ is expressed in the act of baptism.</p><p>Paul didn’t just decide to write about baptism in Romans 6; the classic exposition of baptism which we find there is within a context. And it's not an appeal for people to be baptized- it's written to baptized believers, appealing for them to live out in practice the "in Christ" status which they had been given as a result of their baptisms. If we really feel the result of our baptism, we will not "continue in sin". Martin Luther used to overcome temptation by taking a chalk and writing&nbsp;<em>baptizatus sum</em>- 'I am baptized'. And therefore we simply cannot continue in servitude to sin. As Karl Barth put it in his needle-sharp analysis of baptism's implications: "Baptism recalls me to the service of witness, since it recalls me to daily repentance" (Karl Barth,&nbsp;<em>Dogmatics In Outline</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 1972 ed:) p. 151). It should be noted that allusions to baptism in Paul's letters are in passages where Paul is trying to correct misunderstandings about unity and way of life (Romans 6; <em><a href='B:520 8:12-17'>Rom 8:12-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em> to <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>; 1 Corinthians 1-4, 12). The early brethren had a tendency to forget the implications of baptism. And so it is with us all today. Entering the body of Christ by baptism means that our sins are in a sense against our own brethren, our spiritual body, as well as against the Lord personally. Like the prodigal, we realize we sin against Heaven and men.</p><p>The Implications Of Baptism<br/>One of the reasons for baptism is perhaps so that we realize that we can't just drift into relationship with God; there must be a concrete point at which we decide for Him and His Son. The whole thing is so counter-instinctive, as Naaman discovered- to get wet, with all the awkwardness of it being so public, to be exposed and vulnerable to the view of others, to be dipped under water by another person... it's not exactly painless and effortless. Commonly enough, the New Testament speaks of baptism as a calling upon the Name of the Lord. This must be understood against its Hebrew background-&nbsp;<em>qara' beshem Yahweh</em>, which originally referred to approaching God in sacrifice (<em><a href='B:10 12:7-8'>Gen 12:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:4'>Psa 116:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 116:17'>Psa 116:17</a></em>). God placed His Name upon places in order to make them suitable places for sacrifice to be offered to Him (<em><a href='B:50 12:4-7'>Deu 12:4-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:21'>Deu 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:12'>Jer 7:12</a></em>). Baptism was thus seen as a sacrificial commitment to Yahweh in solemn covenant:&nbsp;</p><p>Further, in the first century, such baptisms were required of Gentiles who wished to become proselyte Jews and thus enter "Israel". For orthodox Jews to submit to baptism demanded a lot- for it implied they were not by birth part of the true Israel as they had once proudly thought. The Jews thought of Israel in the very terms which Paul applies to Jesus: "We Thy people whom Thou hast honoured and hast called the Firstborn and Only-Begotten, Near and Beloved One" (<em>The Apocalypse Of Ezra</em>&nbsp;6:55-58 (London: S:P:C:K:, 1917 ed:) p. 47). The New Testament uses these titles to describe the Lord Jesus Christ- and we must be baptized into Him in order to be in His Name and titles. The Lord Jesus was thus portrayed as Israel idealized and personified, all that Israel the suffering servant should have been; thus only by baptism into Christ of Jew and Gentile could they become part of the true seed of Abraham, the Israel of God (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). The act of baptism into Christ is no less radical for us in our contexts today than it was for first century Jews. All we once mentally held dear, we have to give up:&nbsp;</p><p>Our Relationship With God&nbsp;<br/>Being baptized into the Name has quite some implications. In Hebrew thought, you called your name upon that which was your personal property- hence a wife took on the name of her husband because he placed it upon her. By baptism into the Name of the Father and His Son, we become their personal property, their woman, upon whom they have unique claims and obligations. Baptism in this sense is a kind of marriage contract with none less than the God of the universe. We can't drift into relationship with God; God has designed the whole experience of baptism so that we once and for all make a choice, to be with Him and not this world, to be in Christ and covered in Him, rather than wandering in the rags of our own righteousness and occasional half-hearted stabs at real spirituality.</p><p>There is no doubt that the cross and baptism into that death was central to the preaching message of the early brethren. According to the Bible, baptism is essential to salvation; yet we can't draw hoops around God and limit His salvation ultimately. The completeness and reality of the redemption achieved is expressed in Hebrews with a sense of finality, and we ought to not let that slip from our presentation of the Gospel either. There in the cross, the justice and mercy of God are brought together in the ultimate way. There in the cross is the appeal. Some of the early missionaries reported how they could never get any response to their message until they explained the cross; and so, with our true doctrinal understanding of it, it is my belief that the cross is what has the power of conversion. A man cannot face it and not have a deep impression of the absoluteness of the issues involved in faith and unbelief, in choosing to accept or reject the work of the struggling, sweating, gasping Man who hung on the stake. It truly is a question of believe or perish. Baptism into that death and resurrection is essential for salvation. Of course we must not bully or intimidate people into faith, but on the other hand, a preaching of the cross cannot help but have something compulsive and urgent and passionate about it. For we appeal to men on God’s behalf to accept the work of the cross as efficacious for them. In this sense baptism is essential to salvation&nbsp;<em>from our perspective:&nbsp;</em>It can be that much of our preaching somehow fails in urgency and entreaty. We seem to be in places too expository, or too attractive with the peripherals, seeking to please men... or be offering good advice, very good advice indeed, background Bible knowledge, how to read the Bible effectively... :all of which may be all well and good, but we should be preaching good news, not good advice. The message of the cross is of a grace and real salvation which is almost too good to believe. It isn't Bible background or archaeology or potshots at interpreting Bible prophecy. It is the Man who had our nature hanging there perfect, full of love, a light in this dark world... and as far as we perceive the wonder of it all, as far as this breaks in upon us, so far we will hold it forth to this world. If we think there could be other paths to salvation, then we wouldn't preach Christ as we do. The zeal of the early brethren to witness for Him was because, as they explained, there is no other name under Heaven whereby we may be saved. People do not drift into covenant relationship with God; they have to consciously chose, and God has instituted baptism as a means to that end; to force a man or woman to a conscious decision and crossing of boundaries. And this is why we preach towards baptism, with an eye on future conversion, knowing that baptism is essential to salvation.</p><p><em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em> records how there "came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?". There is a parallel between desiring baptism and realizing that they must&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;something concretely in their lives. The baptism process brings us into the realm of God’s gracious forgiveness and redemption, and into living contact with the real Christ. There is no way we can be passive to this and do nothing about it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:2'>Rom 6:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God forbid We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live in it?-&nbsp;</em>The idea is of living in the sphere of sin, identifying ourselves with being “in Adam” rather than the sphere of “in Christ”. Romans 6 is talking about being in one of two spheres- in the flesh, and in the Spirit; in Adam, or in Christ; continuing in condemnation, or rejoicing in our justified status in Christ. It is actually impossible for us to ‘live in sin’ for a moment, because we are no longer “in” that sphere or position:&nbsp;</p><p>Baptism is a change of masters- but we are still bondslaves, not of sin, but of God. The implications of this figure may not be immediately apparent to the modern mind. We are totally committed to the Master- this is who we are, bondslaves. In <em><a href='B:10 44:9'>Gen 44:9</a></em>, being dead is paralleled with being a slave; and there appears a parallel between being a bondslave and dying in <em><a href='B:10 44:9'>Gen 44:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:17'>Gen 44:17</a></em>. Indeed, Romans 6 draws the same parallel- death to sin is part of being a slave of Christ. The very fact we are baptized means we should not continue in sin, seeing we are dead to it (<em><a href='B:520 6:2'>Rom 6:2</a></em>). This is one of the most basic implications of a first principle which we live in ignorance of most of our days.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or are you ignorant of the fact that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?</em>– A common appeal of Paul’s in his letters (<em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:1'>1Co 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:13'>1Th 4:13</a></em>). His earnest desire was that his readership would appreciate the real import of what they knew in theory:&nbsp;  This is the most profound truth- that we are united with His death, in life. Our life is a living out of His death. We are dead with Him, but yet we are dying with Him, and so Phil. 2 appeals for us to live with the mind He had as He was dying. We are in union with Christ (Gal. 3:27), "in Christ". Man is thereby not alone in this world. We have somebody. And it is that desire to have somebody which drives this world, psychologically. It drives their morals, it drives their worldview deep within them. As ever, man asks the right questions and wants the right things, but looks for the answers in the wrong places. The answer is ultimately in union with the Lord Jesus, which begins at baptism. But man has a tendency to ever be in search of ideal realtionship, and there's more fun in the search than in finding. And when he finds the Lord, he too easily treats Him as another town along the endless toad to Wigan Pier, and moves on in the search.</p><p>Galatians was one of Paul’s earlier letters. In it, he speaks of his own baptism: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live” (<em><a href='B:550 2:19-21'>Gal 2:19-21</a></em>). Years later he writes to the Romans about&nbsp;<em>their&nbsp;</em>baptisms, in exactly the same language: “All of us who have been baptized… our old self was crucified with him… the life he lives he lives to God” (<em><a href='B:520 6:1-10'>Rom 6:1-10</a></em>). He clearly seeks to forge an identity between his readers and himself; their baptisms were and are as radical as his in their import. Note how in many of his letters, especially Galatians and Corinthians, he switches so easily between “you” and “we”, as if to drive home the fact that there was to be no perception of distance between him the writer and us the readers. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>We were buried therefore with him through a baptism into his death</em>- Gk:&nbsp;<em>dia&nbsp;</em>baptism. It is through baptism, on account of it, that we are “in Christ” and associated with the saving death of the Lord Jesus. This is how, mechanically, as it were, we become “in Christ”. The use of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;here demonstrates the colossal importance of baptism. The significance of burial is that our death with Him is sealed. Burial seals death. Whilst we can fall away, as Israel wished to return to Egypt after baptism, it is as difficult and wilful as a dead man pushing open his burial coffin. Or the adopted son disowning his adoptive Father. Burial is something done to us; and that is a theme here. We were baptized- by Jesus. We were "united with him in the likeness of his death" (:5)- again, this was done to us, and is progressively done to us through the Lord's Spirit and usage of life situations to unite us with the crucified, slain and buried Lord Jesus. We were "planted together with Him" in baptism (:5)- again, planting has to be done to a seed. We were "crucified with Him" (:6)- and crucifixion is done to somebody, you cannot crucify yourself on a stake of wood. We were slaves bought out of slavery to sin, "made free from sin" in the manumission paid for in the blood of Jesus, and thereby 'made servants' to righteousness (:18). "You became the servants..." (:18) definitely means 'you were made the servants'. It is translated 'brought into bondage' [Israel in Egypt, Acts 7:6]; "I made myself a servant to all" (1 Cor. 9:19); "of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage / servitude" (2 Pet. 2:19). And the blood of the Lord has overcome us and won us for Him, and we enter His household as His servants. We were bought by a master, not given ultimate personal freedom, and so we become His servants. When a slave was bought by a new owner, he had no say in the matter- he was now at the disposal of the new master. This is all the language of what is done to us. Baptism is presented as a willing surrender to these processes. It is something done to us- we are baptized. "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body... and were all made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13).  
Our response is to "yield" to the process (:13,16,19), the word meaning to present yourself. We are now the Lord's servants, but we need to present ourselves for service. In practice we do this by presenting ourselvs to those in Him as their servants: "Brother, sister, let me serve you, let me be the Christ to you". The same word is used in Rom. 16:2 about assisting or presenting themselves in service to Phoebe. 
We are to 'reckon / count ourselves' as dead to sin (:11), seeing ourselves as God reckons us; looking at sin and thinking 'this is not for me', not allowing sin to reign but allowing the Lord Jesus to reign in our lives (:12). </p><p>“Therefore we&nbsp;<em>are&nbsp;</em>buried with him by baptism into death... knowing this, that our old man&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;crucified with him" (<em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>). Every time someone is baptized, the Lord as it were goes through His death for them again. And yet baptism is an ongoing process, of dying daily. We are in Christ, connected every moment with the life and living out of His cross. We&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;dying with Him, our old man&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;crucified with Him because His death is an ongoing one. “It is Christ that died... Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?... As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (<em><a href='B:520 8:34-36'>Rom 8:34-36</a></em>). According to Isaiah 53, He on the cross was the sheep for the slaughter; but all in Him are&nbsp;<em>all day long</em>&nbsp;counted as sharing His death, as we live out the same self-control, the same spirit of love and self-giving for others, regardless of their response...</p><p><em>That like as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father</em>- This doesn’t mean that some bright light as it were hauled the body of Jesus out of the grave. The glory of God is essentially His character and attributes; when Moses asked to see God’s glory, He heard the essential character of God proclaimed. Christ was raised from the dead&nbsp;<em>dia&nbsp;</em>, for the sake of, this glory. He perfectly revealed it in a life and personality which was totally like God’s, omitting no aspect of righteousness and not committing any sin. He gave His life for us, to become our full representative; and therefore it was appropriate that He be raised again, for the wages of sin is death, but He had done no sin. His same perfection is counted to us, if we believe in Him and into Him through “the obedience of faith” in baptism. And it is on this basis that we too shall rise again. Paul mentions this aspect of the Lord’s resurrection to explain to us something more about&nbsp;<em>how and why</em>&nbsp;immersion into His death and resurrection can lead to&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;resurrection. We must consider that His resurrection is in fact going to be ours exactly because His righteousness is counted to us, and therefore<em>, dia,</em>&nbsp;that, for the sake of it, we took shall be raised to life eternal.</p><p>The theory of Him only ‘acting out’ reaches its nadir when we come- as each Christian must- to personally contemplate the meaning of the dead body of Jesus. That lifeless corpse, in contrast with the immortal God who cannot die, was surely the ultimate testament to Christ’s total humanity. God did not die for three days. The Lord Jesus did. His subsequent resurrection doesn’t in any way detract from the fact that He was really dead for three days. Indeed, His resurrection would also have been a cheap sham if He had actually not been really dead, with all that death means. We too, in our natural fear of death (cp. <em><a href='B:650 2:15'>Heb 2:15</a></em>), come to that dead body and wish to identify ourselves with it, so that we might share in His resurrection. Baptism is a baptism into His death (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>). It’s more than some act of vague identification with the dead and resurrected Jesus. We are “buried with him”, literally ‘co-buried’ (Gk:&nbsp;<em>syn-thaptein</em>) with Him, inserted into His death, sharing the same grave. If His death was not really death, then baptism loses its meaning, and we are left still searching for another Saviour with whom we can identify in order to rise out of the grave. &nbsp;Jesus Himself was baptized in order to emphasize our identity with Him: “Now when&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the people were baptized, and Jesus&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;had been baptized…” (<em><a href='B:490 3:21'>Luk 3:21</a></em>).</p><p>Our experience of grace means “that we should serve in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (<em><a href='B:520 7:6'>Rom 7:6</a></em>). We don’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to serve God in the sense that He grants us salvation by pure grace, not by works. The blessing of the Lord has nothing added to it by human toil (<em><a href='B:240 10:22'>Pro 10:22</a></em> RVmg:). But just because we don’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to do it, we do. This is the power of grace; it doesn’t force us to monotonous service, but should be a wellspring of fresh motivation, to do perhaps the same things with an ever fresh spirit. The pure&nbsp;<em>wonder</em>&nbsp;of it all needs to be felt- that&nbsp;<em>for nothing but pure faith</em>&nbsp;the Lord will grant us eternal redemption for the sake of the Lord’s death and resurrection. Which is why <em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em> says that because of this, and our appropriation of it in baptism, we therefore live in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of life, a quality of life that is ever new. Through His death, a new and living way is opened (<em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em>). We share the ever fresh life which the Lord lived from His resurrection. It does us good to try to imagine that scene- the Son of God, coming out of the grave at daybreak. He would have seen the lights of Jerusalem shimmering away in the distance, a few kms. away, as everyone woke up and went back to work, the first day after the long holiday. Getting the children ready, caring for the animals… it was back to the same old scene. But as they did so, the Son of God was rising to newness of life, standing alone in the fresh morning air, with a life that was ever new, with a joy and dynamism that was to know no end… His feelings are beyond us, but all the same, distorted by our nature, by our spiritual dysfunction, into&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>lives&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>life breaks through.</p><p><em>So we also might walk in newness of life</em>- The similar passage in <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em> speaks of how "according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (see note there). This regenerative power is from the Spirit working within our minds, making life ever new as the Spirit is progressively poured out. Paul will develop this further in chapter 8. There is a clear link between water baptism and the birth of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3-5). All things are becoming new once we are in Christ by baptism (2 Cor. 5:17). Baptism is not just forgiveness but the cleansing of our innermost conscience (1 Pet. 3:21). "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body... and were all made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). Walking in newness of life is to "serve in newness of spirit" (Rom. 7:3). It is the ever new life caused by the work of the Spirit. Life is never now stale or boring, we are renewed day by day in our inward man even though the outward man perishes (2 Cor. 4:16). This does not mean that we cease sinning. Paul laments that indeed his inward man serves the law of God (Rom. 7:22), but his flesh continues to sin. We put on the new man which is being ongoingly created by God in righteousness (Eph. 4:24), being renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that is creating him (Col. 3:10). </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if we have become united with him-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'planted together'. The image appears to be of two seeds growing up together out of the ground. To parallel Christ with us in this way is arresting; that we, so far behind Him, our Master, King and hero- should actually be seeds and tender plants growing up next to Him. The suggestion could be that Christ is still growing, His life is a newness of life, an ever fresh experience, a growth, which goes on eternally; and we are growing together with Him. And that growth has started even now. The initial planting under the earth is symbolized by going under the water of baptism.</p><p><em>In the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection</em>- The reference could be to baptism itself as the likeness of His death. But perhaps the idea more essentially is that our death to sin is a copy, a “likeness”, of Christ’s death to sin (<em><a href='B:520 6:10'>Rom 6:10</a></em>). It’s an elevating thought- that we are seeking to copy His death in our daily death to sin. Not only through our rejecting of temptation, but our recognition that we are in a state of being dead to sin and its demands, because we are counted right before God by our faith in His grace. “Likeness” is used in the LXX in the frequent warnings not to make an image or likeness of any god, let alone Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 20:4'>Exo 20:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:16-25'>Deu 4:16-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:18-19'>Isa 40:18-19</a></em>). The reason for this prohibition becomes clearer in the New Testament; the ultimate likeness of God is in His Son, and we are to create the likeness of His Son not as a mere physical icon, but within the very structure of our human personality and character. In this we as it were die with Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:8'>Rom 6:8</a></em>)- not just in the dirt and heat of battling and resisting temptation to sin, but in that we have identified ourselves with Him there, we are in the sphere of Christ rather than Adam. What we do with our thoughts, our spare time, what our aims and ambitions are in life, where our heart is- is within the Christ sphere rather than the Adam sphere, the spirit rather than the flesh. We are in the “likeness” of Christ’s death by baptism, and He is in the “likeness of our sinful flesh” (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>)- thereby showing the mutuality between Him and us, and how representation and response to it is two-way. He is like us, and we therefore seek to become like Him.</p><p>God forbid that for us, the cross should be a mere art form that we admire from afar. We are to be intimately connected with the spirit of the Lord as He hung there. In baptism, we are to be ‘incorporated with him in a death like his’ (<em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>). The Greek word&nbsp;<em>symphytoi</em>&nbsp;speaks of a symphony, in which we and the Lord in His time of dying are united together. Likewise <em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em> speak of being ‘fused into the mould of his death’. He, as He was there, is to be our mould. The strange ability of the cross to elicit powerful response in practice is one way in which the blood of Christ sanctifies us. His sacrifice not only brings forgiveness for past sins, it is the inspiration to a sanctified future life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Knowing this-</em>&nbsp;see on <em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em>. As in <em><a href='B:520 6:9'>Rom 6:9</a></em>, “knowing” these things means more than factual knowledge; Paul is driving home the practical implications.</p><p><em>That our old man</em>- the contrast between the old man and the new man is similar to that which Paul draws in <em><a href='B:530 15:45'>1Co 15:45</a></em> between the “first man”, Adam, and the “last” man, Christ. Therefore I suggest that the “old man” here is a reference to our status in Adam; by baptism we pass from that status to that of the “new man”, Christ. <em><a href='B:560 4:22-24'>Eph 4:22-24</a></em> exhorts baptized believers to put off the old man and put on the new man- i:e. to live out in practice the change in status which occurred in baptism. “The new man” comprises Jew and Gentile (<em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:10-11'>Col 3:10-11</a></em>)- connecting with how <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em> explains that baptism into Christ likewise gives us a status of “in Christ” which thereby obviates any difference between Jew and Gentile. If “the old man” refers to our status in Adam which has now ended, been crucified, then we need no longer be phased by the fact that no baptized believer manages to totally avoid sinning; none of us have put to death the old manner of life in totality. All our days we seek to respond to the change of status which has occurred, living appropriate to that change.</p><p><em>Is crucified with Him</em>- the very pinnacle of the Lord’s achievement, which we tend to gape at from an awed distance reflecting that ‘I would not, could not, possibly, have done that’, is counted to us insofar as we are in Christ. “Is crucified” is a translation which misses the point- the Greek speaks of this as a one time act which we did with Christ, rather than any ongoing identity with the crucifixion through our sufferings over the course of our life. That one time point of identity was surely baptism, when we were counted as in Christ, changed status from Adam to Christ, and His crucifixion was counted to us as if we had died there. This interpretation is in context with Paul’s argument in Romans; he’s not merely saying that our sufferings in fighting sin bring us identity with Christ’s crucifixion, or that thereby we know something of the spirit of the crucified Christ. For we are so, so far behind Him. And our paltry efforts fall far short, and certainly would not entitle us to a resurrection. By our being counted as dead, even crucified, with Christ, because we are seen as “in” Him, we will be thereby also resurrected with Him in that we will share in His resurrection life just as we were identified with His death. Indeed, all that is true of Him becomes true of us. We died with Him (<em><a href='B:520 6:8'>Rom 6:8</a></em>), were crucified with Him (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>), buried with Him (<em><a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a></em>), raised with Him (<em><a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:1'>Col 3:1</a></em>); are seated with Him in Heaven (<em><a href='B:560 2:16'>Eph 2:16</a></em>), are simply “with” Christ in life today (<em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em>), and so will eternally be “with the Lord” Jesus (<em><a href='B:590 4:17'>1Th 4:17</a></em>).</p><p><em>That the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin</em>- Is the body of sin done away with at the day of judgment? Or is it now; for therefore we no longer serve sin, and that surely is our status now. It’s a case of ‘now but not yet’. Paul speaks of how the life / living of Jesus is now manifested in our “mortal flesh” (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>). So we still have “mortal flesh” now. It will only literally be no more at the Lord’s return. This could require the next clause to be translated “that from then onwards i:e. after the day of judgment we shall no longer serve sin”. However, this phrase could be returning back to this life- with the idea being that because at the day of judgment our body of sin will be destroyed, and this was guaranteed by our baptism into Christ, we therefore shouldn’t serve sin, in having sin as our master. We are no longer in that sphere, under that domination- but instead under the domination of Christ and within His sphere. Note the difference between the “old man” being crucified and the “body of sin” being therefore, henceforth, destroyed. The old way of life which is how Paul uses “the old man” in <em><a href='B:560 4:22'>Eph 4:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:9'>Col 3:9</a></em> is dead, we have changed status, living as “the new man”, Christ. This will come to its physical manifestation in the destruction of our physical body and the gift of the new body at the day of judgment:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:7'>Rom 6:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that has died is set free from sin</em>- is virtually quoting Rabbinic writings. However in the Talmud there is the statement that “when a man is dead he is freed from keeping the law” (<em>B. Shabbat</em>, 151 B). Paul provocatively replaces “law” with “sin”. Not that God’s law is sinful in itself, but he has been emphasizing that the Law is associated with sin because it as it were magnifies sin and leads to the conscious crossing over of a Divine line which results in sin being imputed to man. However, “freed” here translates the usual word for “justified” or acquitted. A slave can no longer serve a master after the death of the slave. And this is how God counts us. This is another example of legal language in Romans. The idea also is that a person cannot be accused of crimes after they have died. We are legally free from the claims of sin- because we died. We took the death penalty when we were baptized into the Lord's death. This idea of being free from accusation will be developed in Rom. 8. And it is this freedom which secular man can only dream of, scared and fearful as he is of being accused of this or that, of trial and condemnation before the court of public opinion. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:8'>Rom 6:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if we died with Christ</em>- In baptism into Christ’s death. Paul is writing to baptized believers; his thought is therefore ‘Since we died with Him’:&nbsp;</p><p><em>We believe that we shall also live with Him</em>- yet the fact someone has been baptized doesn’t necessarily mean that they do at this point believe that they will live with Christ. Paul surely means that if we really accept the reality of what happened at baptism, this must influence our faith now- that we shall therefore live with Him eternally in the future, and we therefore shall live with Him and in Him, within the sphere of His life, right now. The logic here is powerful, intense, and cutting. It can’t be squirmed out of. If we really were baptized into His death- then we almost have to believe that we will also live with Him, because He didn’t stay dead but rose to life. The power of baptism, therefore, is that it reminds us subsequently in our lives of the simple fact that therefore, as Christ died and lives, so I too “shall”, I really will, “live with Him”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:9'>Rom 6:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dies no more-</em>&nbsp;“We believe that we shall live with Him” (<em><a href='B:520 6:8'>Rom 6:8</a></em>) because we know that Christ was raised from the dead. To believe that He rose from the dead is therefore no painless intellectual matter. If He rose, and if I really died with Him, then I shall for sure live with Him. Because He is me and I am Him; He in me and I in Him. This is what Paul is saying, amidst our own doubts and fears about our moral failures trying to shout him down:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Death no more has dominion over him</em>- If death and sin have no more dominion over Christ, they have no dominion over us, and therefore we are to live as if sin has no dominion over us (<em><a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:10'>Rom 6:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the death that he died, he died to sin once</em>- This apparently obvious fact is added to develop the argument that because He totally isn’t under the power of sin and death any more, we who are in Him are likewise free from it, totally and utterly- by status. And seeing His death isn’t ongoing, our freedom from sin should likewise be ongoing:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But the life that he lives, he lives to God</em>- The fact that even now, the Son of God lives “unto God”, to His glory, for His sake, unto Him… is a sure proof that He isn’t “God” in any Trinitarian sense. But just as His life is constantly and in every dimension “for God”, so we also should be living unto God now (<em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em>)- not a hobby, a part time religion, but a devotion to His sphere in every aspect of our existence.</p><p>The life that He lived and now lives, and the death that He died, become ours (<em><a href='B:520 6:10'>Rom 6:10</a></em> RV). We identified with that life, that death, at baptism. But it’s an ongoing thing. We live in&nbsp;<em>newness</em>&nbsp;of life. The life in Christ is not a stagnant pond, but rather living water, spring water, bubbling fresh from the spring. The Lord Jesus died and rose as our representative. Therefore we live out His life, His death, His rising again to new life; and so as we sing,&nbsp;“into&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;life&nbsp;<em>your&nbsp;</em>power breaks through, living Lord”. And this is what we give out to others- for “he that believeth in me, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of springing water” for others (<em><a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>). We can experience the newness of life of Christ right now. His life is now made manifest in our mortal flesh (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>), insofar as we seek to live our lives governed by the golden rule: ‘What would Jesus do…?’. The life that He had and now lives is the essence of the Kingdom life.</p><p>Throughout the New Testament, there is a clear link between the preaching of the cross, and men and women being converted. There is a power of conversion in the image and message of Christ crucified as our representative. Man cannot remain passive before this. Baptism is an appropriation of His death and resurrection to ourselves. This is why the response to the preaching of the cross in the 1st century was baptism. And the response doesn't stop there; it continues, in the living of the life of the risen Jesus in our lives after baptism: "For the death that he died, he died unto sin… the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to dead unto sin but alive unto God because you are in Christ by baptism into Him" (<em><a href='B:520 6:10-11'>Rom 6:10-11</a></em> RV). The death Christ died for us, the life He lives, are all imperatives to us now:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:11'>Rom 6:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 2:26'>Rom 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:10'>Rom 6:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>Even so count yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus</em>– “Count” translates the common Greek word for “impute”. As God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, we are to count ourselves, perceive ourselves, feel ourselves, as really like that. Hence the emphasis- “you also yourselves”, we, us, are to see ourselves as God sees us, rather than merely accepting that He wishes to see us as He chooses to see us. His opinion of us in the ultimate reality for us- and we are to share that view.<br/>Paul’s emphasis is not so much that baptized believers will be resurrected when Christ returns, true as this is and important within his overall argument; but rather that having been raised with Christ, the new resurrection life of Jesus breaks through into our lives right now. Elsewhere Paul likewise talks of our participating in glory right now (<em><a href='B:540 3:16'>2Co 3:16</a></em>), whereas the ultimate glory is yet to come and the transformation of our bodies (<em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:12'>Rom 6:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore do not let not sin reign&nbsp;</em>- We are to live out in practice the status we have in Christ. “Sin shall not reign over you” (<em><a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a></em>); but we must therefore make an effort to not let sin reign. Likewise in <em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:12'>Rom 8:12</a></em>: “You are not in the flesh… do not live according to the flesh”.</p><p><em>In your mortal body</em>- Having said that “the body of sin” is to be destroyed (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>) and that we are to live in the sphere of Christ rather than Adam, we have changed masters and should live and feel like that, Paul reminds us that our body is still mortal- reminding us that we are still awaiting the change of body which is to come at the final judgment when Christ returns.</p><p><em>That you should obey the lusts of it</em>- There are within the human body the natural passions / desires to sin, “the passion of the flesh” (<em><a href='B:550 5:16'>Gal 5:16</a></em>). They aren’t sinful in themselves- for the Lord Jesus was sinless and yet had our same “mortal body”. But the fact they are the source of sin and are within our bodies explains why there is such a strong connection between sin and our bodies, leading to expressions such as “the body of sin” (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>) and “sinful flesh” (<em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>). But this isn’t to say that the body is itself sinful or that it’s somehow a sin to be human.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Neither present your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness-</em>&nbsp;“<em>Instruments” is</em>&nbsp;s:w. armour, weapon (<em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:7'>2Co 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:4'>2Co 10:4</a></em>). We are called to fight, to serve in the army- of either sin or Christ. No passivity or wavering between the positions is therefore possible. We have changed sides. See on <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>.</p><p><em>But present yourselves to God, as alive from the dead; and your members as instruments of righteousness to God</em>- The aorist tense could suggest a one time presenting of ourselves- at baptism? And if we didn’t appreciate at the time of our baptism that this is what we were doing, we can do it now. Maybe that explains the otherwise difficult to translate tense usage here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 6:12'>Rom 6:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>For sin shall not have dominion over you</em>- Yet we still sin. But Paul is again talking about our changed status- sin is not now our Lord, our master; instead, Jesus is:&nbsp;<em>Kurieuo</em>&nbsp;(“have dominion”) is clearly intended to contrast with&nbsp;<em>Kurios</em>, the usual Greek word translated “Lord” with reference to the Lord Jesus. See on <em><a href='B:520 6:9'>Rom 6:9</a></em>. The Lord Jesus rose again&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;He might be our Lord, s:w. “dominion”, over us His people (<em><a href='B:520 14:9'>Rom 14:9</a></em>). “Shall not” can be translated as “Sin will not have dominion” (ESV)- so that it’s not a demand that we stop allowing sin to dominate, but rather an exaltation that the “sin” sphere of things will not in the end have dominion in our lives, because we are in Christ.</p><p><em>For you are not under law, but under grace</em>- This would’ve been more radical to Jewish readers and listeners than we may appreciate; for Judaism’s big issue has always been that the Law is required in order to curb or restrain sin, and that societies without the Law are more sinful than those influenced by it. But here Paul is saying that if we forget about the Jewish Law and live as believers justified by pure grace, this will have more practical power in delivering a man from sin’s dominion than any attempt at obedience to a legal code. “Under” was appropriate to slaves ‘under’ a master. We are ‘under’ grace as our master rather than law. The strength of sin is the law (<em><a href='B:530 15:56'>1Co 15:56</a></em>); if the law isn’t our master, then sin likewise isn’t our master, and therefore sin will not ultimately dominate us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:15'>Rom 6:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under law but under grace? God forbid-&nbsp;</em>See notes on “under…” at <em><a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a></em>. If we are under grace rather than law, then we will not be counted by God as sinning. We declared right, justified. Paul may mean there that we are not&nbsp;<em>counted as</em>&nbsp;continual sinners even though we believers do keep on sinning, sadly, because we are under grace as a master rather than law. Or he may mean that those truly under grace don’t keep on sinning, because the wonder of their position inspires them not to. This contrasts sharply with the Judaistic view that it is the Law which curbs sin. Paul is arguing the very opposite: that leaving the sphere of Law and coming under grace will actually curb sin:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know, that to whom you present yourselves as slaves to obedience, his slaves you are whom you obey? Whether of sin to death</em>- See on <em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em>. The obedience would seem to be a one time obedience- in baptism- an obedience to a form of doctrine delivered to them (<em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>). “The obedience of faith” which Paul spoke of in <em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em> he now interprets as baptism. Note the parallel between faith and obedience in <em><a href='B:520 10:16'>Rom 10:16</a></em>.</p><p>Paul expected other believers to share his familiarity with the words of Christ. There's an example in <em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em>: " Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are... whether of sin... or of obedience?". This is alluding to <em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em> concerning not serving two masters. Paul is surely saying: 'Come on, this is Matthew 6, you can't serve two masters That principle ought to be firmly lodged in your heart'. In terms of Paul’s argument about which status or sphere we are in, his point is simple: you can only be in one sphere or the other, either under law or grace, sin or obedience. It’s therefore impossible to continue sinning. in God’s view and it’s His view of the matter which is the only thing worth anything- because we are either justified in Christ, or not justified and condemned sinners. The tree brings forth either good or bad fruit (<em><a href='B:470 7:18'>Mat 7:18</a></em>)- in that we are “in” either the good tree or the bad one. Paul deploys this argument to answer the objection that we may as well continue sinning- he’s saying not merely that we ought not to do that, but rather that ultimately we&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;do that, because we are either under sin or under obedience. Notice that he personifies “obedience” as a slave owner, to whom we now belong. The two slave masters in view here are called “sin” and “obedience”. We are clearly to identify “obedience” with the Lord Jesus. And Paul has just written about the singular and spectacular “obedience” of Jesus in dying for us on the cross (see on <em><a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a></em>). This act made Jesus to be Lord and Master for us. We are obedient to His obedience, as it were. Which is the whole idea of baptism- we are buried together with Him, we die with Him, His death becomes ours, and thus His obedience unto death is ours.</p><p><em>Or of obedience to righteousness</em>- The end result of our serving “obedience”, i:e. the Lord Jesus, is righteousness. But Paul’s argument has been that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and righteousness has to be imputed to us. The end result of being under “obedience”, in Christ, is that righteousness is imputed to us, we are declared righteous, justified, as we stand before the final judgment. Lack of attention to Paul’s argument and the meaning attached to the terms being used in Romans can lead the casual reader of this verse to think that by acts of obedience we become righteous- and that is the very opposite of what Paul has been teaching all along:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But thanks be to God, that whereas you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching which was delivered to you</em>- This must be interpreted in the context of Paul’s insistent theme that we have changed masters, changed status. “Handed over” could be an allusion to handing over a slave from one master to another- the form of teaching would therefore refer to the form or mould to which we are exposed under our new master, the Lord Jesus. In this case it would refer to post baptismal rather than pre baptismal teaching. Alternatively he may be referring to the fact that the teaching or doctrine of Christ had been delivered or handed over to them from Christ Himself (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:13'>1Co 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>). However, it should be noted that Paul says that the baptized believer is handed over to the doctrine / teaching of Christ- and not the teaching to the believer. Perhaps the contrast is with <em><a href='B:520 2:20'>Rom 2:20</a></em>, where we read of the “form of knowledge and of truth in the law of Moses”. We have been handed over to the form or mould of teaching which is in Christ rather than Moses.</p><p>Paul’s writing that he thanks God for their change of status was maybe to encourage his readers to understand the degree to which in very deed they had changed status- because they seemed to doubt it, as we too tend to.</p><p>We are frequently spoken of as being slaves of God. At baptism, we changed masters (Romans 6). Yet the implications of being a bond-slave are tremendous. We are not our own. We have been bought with a price. And we cannot serve two masters. There’s a powerful, powerful logic here. We are either slaves of ourselves, or slaves of God. Ultimate freedom to do ‘what we want’ is actually not possible. So we may as well take the path of slavery to the Father and Son. Unless we firmly accept this, life will become motion without meaning, activity without direction, events without reason:&nbsp;</p><p>The doctrines we believed at baptism were a 'mould of doctrine' (<em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em> Gk:)- they define the person we turn into. The calling of the Gospel is ongoing- it's not that we hear the call, respond to it, and the call in that sense ceases. There is a set of doctrines which <em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em> calls "the one faith"; which <em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em> calls "that form of doctrine" to be believed before baptism; "the form of sound words" (<em><a href='B:620 1:13'>2Ti 1:13</a></em>).</p><p>“Repent ye and believe the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:480 1:15'>Mar 1:15</a></em>) might seem to be in the wrong order- for surely belief of the Gospel comes before repentance. And so it does. But the point is, life after conversion is a life of believing the basic Gospel which led us to conversion and repentance in the first place. Thus Romans 6 teaches that we were once servants of sin... and we expect the sentence to conclude: 'But now you are servants of righteousness'. But it doesn't. We were once servants of sin but now we have obeyed the form of doctrine delivered to us... and are&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;servants of righteousness. The service of righteousness is a result of accepting "that form of doctrine", perhaps referring to an early catechism or statement of faith taught to baptismal candidates, summarizing the power of the Gospel.</p><p>“Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (<em><a href='B:500 8:34'>Joh 8:34</a></em>), but those in Christ are counted as not being the servants of sin, but of Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:17'>Rom 6:17</a></em>). The connection with <em><a href='B:500 8:34'>Joh 8:34</a></em> makes this tantamount to saying that they are reckoned as not committing sin.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:18'>Rom 6:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And being made free from sin</em>- An allusion to <em><a href='B:90 17:8-9'>1Sa 17:8-9</a></em>?&nbsp;&nbsp;This would imply a manumission, a payment of a price by some gracious person to free a person from slavery. Note that the image isn’t of one slave master buying a slave from another master. It’s of genuine freedom being bought for the slave, by grace. But “being then made free”, because of this, the freed slave decides to become a slave of the gracious Saviour who paid for their release. Being a slave of Christ is therefore described in <em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> as a freewill yielding of our bodies, every part of them, to His service. 1 Enoch <em><a href='B:520 5:7-8'>Rom 5:7-8</a></em> and other Jewish writings spoke of ‘freedom from sin’ coming in the Messianic Kingdom and the destruction of Satan; but Paul applies that phrase to the experience of the Christian believer&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>- see on <em><a href='B:530 10:11'>1Co 10:11</a></em>. J. Milik,&nbsp;<em>The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4</em>(Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) pp. 248-259. The same phrase occurs with the same meaning in the Testament of Levi 14:1.</p><p><em>You became slaves to righteousness</em>- The change of status is so great that there can be no real question about who in practice we should serve. By status we are the servants of righteousness- but that is not to say that we don’t at times in our humanity serve sin in practice. We have yet to become in practice who we are in status. The language of ‘being made free’ and ‘being made slaves’ suggests the power of an external process working upon us; and that is the work of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your human nature; but as you presented your limbs as slaves of uncleanness and iniquity, now present your limbs as slaves of righteousness unto holiness</em>- In Paul’s case, being all things to all men meant that at times He sacrificed highest principle in order to get through to men; he didn’t just baldly state doctrinal truth and leave his hearers with the problem of whether to accept it. He really sought to persuade men. He magnified his ministry of preaching to the Gentiles, he emphasized the possibility of Gentile salvation, “If by any means I may provoke to emulation ‘incite to rivalry’ them which are my flesh the Jews, and might save some of them” (<em><a href='B:520 11:13-14'>Rom 11:13-14</a></em>). This hardly seems a very appropriate method, under the spotlight of highest principle. But it was a method Paul used. Likewise he badgers the Corinthians into giving money for the poor saints in Jerusalem on the basis that he has boasted to others of how much they would give (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>), and these boasts had provoked others to be generous; so now, they had better live up to their promise and give the cash. If somebody promised to give money to charity and then didn’t do so, we wouldn’t pressurize them to give. And we wouldn’t really encourage one ecclesia to give money on the basis of telling them that another ecclesia had promised to be very generous, so they ought to be too. Yet these apparently human methods were used by Paul. He spoke “in human terms” to the Romans, “because of the infirmity of your flesh” (<em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> NIV); he so wanted to make his point understood. And when he told husbands to love their wives, he uses another rather human reason: that because your wife is “one flesh” with you, by loving her you are loving yourself. ‘And’, he reasons, ‘you wouldn’t hate yourself, would you, so – love your wife’. The cynic could reasonably say that this is pure selfishness (<em><a href='B:560 5:29'>Eph 5:29</a></em>); and Paul seems to recognize that the higher level of understanding is that a husband should love his wife purely because he is manifesting the love of Christ to an often indifferent and unappreciative ecclesia (<em><a href='B:560 5:32-33'>Eph 5:32-33</a></em>). And yet Paul plainly uses the lower level argument too. It is possible to discern an element of human appeal in some Biblical statements. Thus the Spirit encourages husbands to love their wives as themselves, because effectively they are loving themselves if they do this (<em><a href='B:560 5:29'>Eph 5:29</a></em>). Yet we are also warned that a characteristic of the last days will be a selfish loving of our<em>selves</em>. Paul speaks of how he puts things "in human terms" (<em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> NIV); e.g. he suggests that fear of the judgment alone ought to at least make us sit up and take our spiritual life seriously (<em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>), even though the tenor of Scripture elsewhere is that this shouldn't be our motivator.</p><p>We should note that Paul is almost apologizing for his metaphors, as if he had put something too crudely. His metaphors are ‘humanly’ quite acceptable- from the courtroom, slavery etc. Given the height and wonder of the grace we are considering, any metaphor, any similitude, any language- is inadequate and even borders on the inappropriate. And note that Paul is writing all these things, both the metaphors and the apology for them, under Divine inspiration:&nbsp;</p><p>The changeover from the downward spiral to the upward spiral ought to have begun at baptism; but as with some of the Roman believers in the first century, a believer can slip back into the downward spiral: "Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness" (<em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> NIV). The life of sexual impurity is an "ever increasing" downwards path; the endless quest for new relationships and sexual novelty doesn't need to be described.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> speaks of how the ever increasing downward spiral of obedience to sin is turned around at baptism, so that we begin an upward spiral of obedience to righteousness. God does good unto those that are good, but leads those who turn aside even further astray (<em><a href='B:230 125:4-5'>Psa 125:4-5</a></em>). Those who are "born of God" are able to hear and understand God’s words (<em><a href='B:500 8:47'>Joh 8:47</a></em>)- and baptism is surely how we are born of God (<em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em>). This seems to open up the possibility of yet higher growth once we are baptized- it's all an upward spiral, like any functional relationship.<br/><em><a href='B:520 6:19-23'>Rom 6:19-23</a></em> makes the contrast between how serving sin leads to ever increasing sin, whilst serving Christ results in ever increasing righteousness. We are all too aware of the upward (downward) spiral of sin- we well know the feeling of losing our spiritual grip for an hour, day or week, and sensing how sin is ever increasing its hold over us. But by our union with Christ in baptism it is quite possible, indeed intended, that we should get into an upward spiral of obedience, in which one spiritual victory leads to another.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:20'>Rom 6:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness</em>- Gk. ‘not a slave of’. Again Paul is labouring the point that one cannot serve two masters. And he does so in a way which makes us think: ‘That’s stating the obvious Why are you repeatedly stating the obvious?’. He does this because it’s not obvious to us that we really are servants of “righteousness” rather than “sin”. We wonder whether we are really counted as righteous or not. Note here that the names of the two slave masters are “sin” and “righteousness”- in <em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em> they were “sin” and “obedience”. We are slaves of Christ, He is our righteousness, and it is counted to us; so “righteousness” is an appropriate title for Him, “the Lord our righteousness”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:21'>Rom 6:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What fruit had you at that time…</em>?- There was no fruit in slavery; it was existence, rather than a life lived:&nbsp;</p><p><em>In the things of which you are now ashamed? For the result of those things is death</em>- Shame is associated with condemnation at the final judgment. We recognize we are condemned sinners, and feel the shame for that. The verse could be punctuated: “What fruit did you have then? That of which you are now ashamed”. This is the great paradox in the Christian experience- feeling condemned for sin, and yet believing in our new status, that we are declared right before the judgment seat of God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:22'>Rom 6:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now being made free from sin, and having become slaves of God</em>- See on <em><a href='B:520 6:18'>Rom 6:18</a></em>. We were made free from slavery, rather than being bought by a slave master from our previous owner. But we chose to become His slaves out of gratitude for His grace. The same Greek is found in <em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em>: “I have&nbsp;<em>made myself a slave</em>&nbsp;to all, that I might gain the more”. The idea is that made ourselves servants / slaves, having been made free from our old master. The two slave masters are now called “sin” and “God”:&nbsp;</p><p><em>You have your fruit&nbsp;unto holiness- and the result is eternal life</em>- But Paul’s whole intention of writing to the Roman church and ministering to them was so that they would bear fruit (<em><a href='B:520 1:13'>Rom 1:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a></em>). If we truly understand that we are no longer in “sin” but the servants of God, in His sphere of things and His acceptance, then we will bear fruit in practice, it simply has to be like that, it’s inevitable. The idea of bearing fruit is connected in the context to baptism into Christ. <em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em> records the Lord likening His death to a seed falling into the ground, going as it were into a grave under the soil, but rising again and bearing fruit. Again- all that is true of the Lord Jesus is true of us who are in Him. Paul has been saying that we were planted together with Him (<em><a href='B:520 6:5'>Rom 6:5</a></em>), buried with Him, rose with Him- and as He is the plant that bears fruit, so are we. We therefore aren’t being exhorted to bear fruit, so much as being told that we have our fruit- for we are in Him. And naturally, this means we will try to live in practice as we are by status. But by status, we do now have our fruit- His fruit- and the end of all this will at the final judgment be “everlasting life”:&nbsp;And yet it is quite legitimate to read the Greek here as meaning that living a spiritually fruitful life now is the “eternal life”- an idea in harmony with the repeated promises in John’s gospel that we can right now live the kind of life we shall eternally live.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em><em> For the wages of sin is death</em>- Used specifically of pay given to soldiers (<em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em>; and every usage in the LXX is in this connection- 1 Esdra 4:56; <em>1Ma_3:28</em>; <em>1Ma_14:32</em>). This would continue the military analogy which was used in <em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em> - of presenting our limbs as armour, weapons Gk:, to King Sin. See also the military term in <em><a href='B:520 7:8'>Rom 7:8</a></em>.</p><p>The&nbsp;<em>wages</em>&nbsp;of sin and the&nbsp;<em>gift</em>&nbsp;of God are here contrasted. “God” and “sin” are the names of the two slave masters in <em><a href='B:520 6:22'>Rom 6:22</a></em>. We noted under <em><a href='B:520 6:22'>Rom 6:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>you have your fruit</em>&nbsp;that the everlasting life will be the end result of our service, given at the day of judgment at Christ’s return. It may be that we are intended to visualize the wages of sin being paid at the same time. In any case, all believers, all servants of God, will die in any case. This isn’t the wages of sin. Surely the “death” that is in view here in <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em> is the second death at the day of judgment:&nbsp;</p><p>Asaph laments how the wicked seem to be so prosperous, and then remembers that one day God will awake. More than this, he comes to see that "they…&nbsp;<em>shall&nbsp;</em>perish: thou&nbsp;<em>hast</em>&nbsp;destroyed them... how are they brought into desolation, as in a moment they&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;utterly consumed with terrors" (<em><a href='B:230 73:27'>Psa 73:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:19'>Psa 73:19</a></em>). The wages of sin&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;death (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em>)- not 'it will be death at the judgment', it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;right now the response God makes to sin. Because God is without time, the judgment has effectively happened to them. We are come to "God the judge of all"- even now (<em><a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a></em>).</p><p><em>But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord</em>- Remember that the context of this whole section in Romans is that of becoming&nbsp;<em>in&nbsp;</em>Christ by baptism&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;Him. This is what associates us with the gift of eternal life.</p><p>Our natural man, the devil, is a personification of sin. He cannot be reformed; he can only be destroyed by death. "The wages of the sin: death" (<em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em> Diaglott) seems to suggest that <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em> is not saying that we die for each specific sin we commit (you can only die for one sin anyway, because we only have one life); rather is it saying that the end of the natural man, "sin", the devil within us, is death. Therefore we must associate ourselves with the man Christ Jesus, both in baptism and in our way of life, so that the personification of Christ within us will be clothed with a glorious bodily form at his return.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or are you ignorant brothers</em>- This continues the appeal to the baptized believers in Rome to not be ignorant of the implications of the things which they have believed and signed up for by baptism into Christ. See on <em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I speak to men who know the Law</em>- This could suggest that this section is addressed to those within the ecclesia in Rome who knew the Law, i:e. who were Jews. There were Gentiles in the church (<em><a href='B:520 1:5-7'>Rom 1:5-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:13-15'>Rom 1:13-15</a></em>) for whom that phrase wouldn’t be appropriate. Chapter 7 could therefore be considered as an appeal to the Jewish subgroup within the Roman church. The language of ‘<em>becoming&nbsp;</em>dead to the law’ in <em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em> would only be appropriate to those who had once lived under it, i:e. Jews.</p><p><em>That the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives?-</em>&nbsp;An allusion to common Rabbinical teaching that the only Jew exempted from keeping the Law is a dead Jew. Paul has been arguing in chapter 6 that we really did die in baptism. Therefore, we are dead- and the Jews themselves taught that a dead man didn’t need to keep the Law.</p><table><tr><td></p><p>Romans 6 (about sin)</td><td>Romans 7 (about the Law)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Sin shall not have (anymore) dominion over you: for you are not under the Law” (:14)</td><td>“The Law has dominion over a man... as long as he lives” (:1)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Dead indeed unto sin” (:11)</td><td>“She is loosed from the Law” (:2)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Being then made free from sin” (:18)</td><td>“She is free from that Law” (:3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“As those that are alive from the dead... you have your fruit unto holiness” (:13,22), having left sin.</td><td>“You should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God” (:4), having left the Law.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Neither yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin (as a result of sin having dominion over you)” (:13,14)</td><td>“When we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members... but now we are delivered from the law” (:5,6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Therefore... we also should walk in newness of life” (:4)</td><td>“We should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” of the Law (:6)</td><td></td></tr></table>


