# comment

text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:29'>Rom 11:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable</em>- The gifts&nbsp;<em>charisma</em>- the many givings of grace and calling are separate. As developed in chapter 8, the sovereign calling of God is a parade example of grace, and it is effected by the Spirit being given to influence men and women towards salvation. Such a gift was given to the Corinthians who had been baptized, although they made no use of it and were thus "not spiritual". It seems that Paul hoped and assumed he was living in the last days, and that therefore the Jewish Christians who had fallen away should reflect that their calling and Spirit gift received was not revocable. And it was God’s earnest wish that they should re-join the olive tree.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:30'>Rom 11:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as you in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :28, their disobedience meant that Gentiles could be saved. Even human failure is used by God in His wider purpose:The Gentiles "have now obtained mercy (i:e. the merciful opportunity to hear the Gospel) through their (Israel's) unbelief. Even so have these (Israel) also now not believed, that through your mercy they may obtain mercy" (<em><a href='B:520 11:30-31'>Rom 11:30-31</a></em>). "Mercy" here cannot be read on a surface level; it cannot be that by showing mercy, another race may obtain mercy. "Mercy" is surely being used as a figure for the preaching of the Gospel. Through our mercy to them in this way they can obtain mercy.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:31'>Rom 11:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you, they may also now obtain mercy-&nbsp;</em>The mercy shown to us by God in allowing the Gospel to come to us (:32), the mercy and grace of calling and predestination, is to be reflected by our taking of the Gospel to others, especially to Israel. This is the practical outcome of all talk about calling and grace. We are to be so humbled by our receipt of it that we go out and share the calling with others, especially Israel. Could this not mean that Israel's reconciliation to God is partly dependent on our "mercy" in preaching the Gospel to them? And now consider Peter's words to Israel: "Repent... and be converted, that (firstly) your sins may be blotted out... and (secondly) he shall send Jesus Christ" at the second coming (<em><a href='B:510 3:19-20'>Act 3:19-20</a></em>). Does this not suggest that Christ's eager desire for the second coming is limited by our preaching to Israel?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>For God has shut up all to disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all</em>- The "all" appears to be that of :26 "All Israel" (see note there). All those within the number of the redeemed from Israel, known as "Israel" (Rom. 9:6), have at some point been disobedient; and that disobedience was within God’s purpose, in the same way as God "concluded s:w. all under sin" (<em><a href='B:550 3:22'>Gal 3:22</a></em>). Human sin and blindness is therefore used by God in the development of His final wonderful purpose of saving all His Israel.</p><p>Thus God works out His plan of salvation actually through man’s disobedience rather than his obedience. As Paul puts it, we are concluded in unbelief, that God may have mercy (Rom. 11:32). It was and is the spirit of Joseph, when he comforted his brothers: “Now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here [i.e. 'because you sinned']; for God sent me before you to preserve life” (Gen. 45:5). And again, speaking about the sin of Israel in rejecting Christ: “Their trespass means riches for the [Gentile] world” (Rom. 11:12). The righteousness of God becomes available to us exactly because we have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23,24). If we lie, then through our lie the truth and glory of God is revealed (Rom. 3:7). God is not defeated by sin, nor does He turn away from it in disgust, but works through human failure to achieve His glory yet moreso. Or yet again, think of how Abraham’s lie about Sarah and unfaithfulness to his marriage covenant with her became a source of God’s blessing and the curing of  Abimelech’s wife from infertility (Gen. 20:17- I read her infertility as a state that existed prior to the incident with Abraham). The light comes into the world- the light of hope of salvation, forgiveness, of God in Christ- but this light reveals to us our verdict of ‘guilty’ (Jn. 3:18,36).</p><p>The references to "all" being saved seem to be limited by the context- and "all" rarely means 'every single one', e.g. "all" Jerusalem went out to hear John the Baptist and were "all" baptized by him. I don't suppose the city was left deserted. The only passage which appears to have some bearing is <em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em>: "For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all". But the context speaks of how both Jews and Gentiles will be saved- not every Jew and Gentile that's lived, but those who accept the Gospel. And how does God have mercy? The preceding verse clarifies: "even so have these also now been disobedient, that by your mercy they also may now obtain mercy" (<em><a href='B:520 11:31'>Rom 11:31</a></em>):&nbsp; Surely the mercy we show to the Jews is preaching the Gospel of God’s mercy to them. Their obtaining mercy depends upon our mercy. Because God chooses to work through us as His witnesses. The Jews must obtain salvation in the same pattern as the Gentiles do: "For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience..." (<em><a href='B:520 11:30'>Rom 11:30</a></em>). As Gentiles crossed over from disobedience to obedience to the Gospel, so must the Jews. And in the last days, this will happen: "…and so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (<em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>). This turning away of ungodliness from Israel is required before "all"- i:e. the redeemed from both Jews and Gentiles- can be saved. But the turning away of ungodliness surely implies a repentance of some Jewish people; God won't just save them regardless, they must turn away from ungodliness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:33'>Rom 11:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past tracing out</em>- This manner of working through human failure (see on :32) in order to save us is indeed beyond human commentary and definition. The knowledge of God here surely refers to His foreknowledge. His ways and judgments refer specifically here to His calling and the time and manner of that calling, by grace. Any attempt to analyse His paths will fail, so we can even less start judging their morality or correctness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:34'>Rom 11:34</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:220 21:22'>Job 21:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counsellor?</em>- The parallel in :35 says that God is outgiving in His gifts /&nbsp;<em>charis</em>&nbsp;/ grace, and not in any way returning to anyone what they gave Him. And this is true of His entire purpose; such pure grace originated within His mind and was not input there by anyone else in any form. The purity of His grace and salvation is pure and awesome. The allusions to Job noted on :16 all indicate that Job was brought to the same conclusion which Paul had come to- that we each lay our hand upon our mouth and recognize that it is not by works but grace alone.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:35'>Rom 11:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or who has given a gift to Him, that he might be repaid?-&nbsp;</em>See on :16 and :34 for the significance of the quote from <em><a href='B:220 41:3'>Job 41:3</a></em>. The gift of grace is unprovoked; God gives it, without in any sense repaying or compensating for work done. For grace would then not be grace. The origination of all things in God is in fact yet another evidence for salvation by grace and not works. For no matter what works we do, the originator of all was God, by grace alone, before we had even existed or done any works. We are to reflect this by doing things for others which they too can never repay (<em><a href='B:490 14:14'>Luk 14:14</a></em> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:36'>Rom 11:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For of Him and through Him and to Him, are all things. To Him be the glory for ever. Amen</em>- As noted on :34 and :35, the way that all things originate in God and are of Him means that all is of grace; for there were no works done which God could have responded to. Of&nbsp;<em>ek</em>, through&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;and to&nbsp;<em>eis</em>&nbsp;all things&nbsp;<em>pas</em>&nbsp;is exactly the language used in <em><a href='B:530 8:6'>1Co 8:6</a></em> about God’s work in the Lord Jesus. God’s whole plan centres in, through and to Him. The "all things" specifically has in view "all Israel" who are to be saved and who are "all things" to God; the "all things" of the new creation, the new Israel of God, comprised of both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus.   </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore I urge you brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your logical service</em>- See on <em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>. As explained in the introduction, the practical section of Romans from <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em> to the end is full of allusion to the earlier theological sections, demonstrating how true understanding is to be lived out in practice. The "mercies" in view are those just discussed in the context of God’s grace in calling us, not according to our works. God will have compassion / mercy s:w. "mercies" on whom He will (<em><a href='B:520 9:15'>Rom 9:15</a></em>)- and He has chosen to have compassion upon us. Our response should be complete surrender to Him. The "mercies" could also be a technical term for the promises- "the sure mercies of David" of <em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>.</p><p>The description of the believer as a “living sacrifice” alludes to the scapegoat, the only living sacrifice, which was a type of the risen Lord (<em><a href='B:30 16:10'>Lev 16:10</a></em> LXX = <em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em>). As the Lord ran free in His resurrection, bearing away the sins of men, so we who are in Him and preach that salvation can do the same. As Christ bore away our iniquities (<em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>), so “we then that are strong ought to bear the iniquities of the weak” (<em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em>).</p><p>Having spoken of the surpassing love of God in Christ, Paul urges that it is “your logical service” to totally dedicate ourselves to Him in response. Our reasoned response is to sacrifice all for His sake. It is not reason nor logic that we are any longer in this world to enjoy ourselves. We are here to give and not to receive.</p><p>Christ is the supreme priest; but because we are “in Him", we too have some part in the priesthood. Note how the priests are described in language relevant to the Lord: "The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity" (<em><a href='B:460 2:6'>Mal 2:6</a></em>). Thus we must "present (our) bodies a living sacrifice" to God (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>); making the believer "the offering and the priest", as Christ was (and is). We are our own priests. This must have been a radical idea to those early Jewish Christians. Yet this is what Paul and Peter were driving at when they said things like: "You&nbsp;<em>also</em>are an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices... present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable (Gk:&nbsp;<em>logikos</em>) service (<em>service</em>&nbsp;is priestly language)" (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). They were saying: '<em>You're your own priest now'.</em>&nbsp;And the early believers found it hard to cope with. Have you considered that the most common form of apostasy (i:e. leaving the true Faith) in the early church was going back to the Jewish Law, with its system of priests? Natural Israel likewise totally failed to live up to God’s desire that they should be a&nbsp;<em>Kingdom</em>&nbsp;of priests. They left it all to their priests. They&nbsp;<em>didn’t&nbsp;</em>teach every man his neighbour and his brother, saying, Know the Lord (<em><a href='B:650 8:11'>Heb 8:11</a></em>; even though when He re-accepts them, God will count them as if they did). Although it was God’s original intention that each family leader sanctified themselves and slew the Passover lamb personally, they came to delegate this to their priests (so <em><a href='B:140 30:17'>2Ch 30:17</a></em> implies). See on <em><a href='B:470 5:29'>Mat 5:29</a></em>.</p><p>We must be living sacrifices, devoted to the Lord (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>); but if we flunk out of this: "His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins" (<em><a href='B:240 5:22'>Pro 5:22</a></em>). We're a sacrifice either way, tied up without the freedom of movement as we would wish. There's therefore and thereby an element of sorrow, either way in life: "Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of (i:e. that gift you will really, eternally enjoy): but the sorrow of the world worketh death" (<em><a href='B:540 7:10'>2Co 7:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And do not conform to the mould of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may experience what is the good and acceptable and the perfect will of God</em>- "Be transformed" is asking us to allow the work of transformation and renewing which He wishes to perform within us. This is different to reading this as a command to somehow use brute psychological force to enforce a new psychology upon ourselves; we aren't strong enough to do so, neither is that a realistic possibility. The same word for "transformed" is used of how the Spirit transforms our minds into the mental image of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). This is an internal transformation and not a reference to any miraculous gifts. Likewise the only other time the Greek word translated "renewing" is used is in <em><a href='B:630 3:5'>Tit 3:5</a></em>, speaking of the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Allowing the work of the Spirit will mean we experience the will of God; and this connects with the theology of chapter 8, where the will of God in choosing us and calling us is shown to outwork in practice through the function of the Holy Spirit in our lives and hearts. The perfecting of that will, its coming to full completion, will be in the salvation of the last day.</p><p>Psychotherapists have powerfully pointed out the difference between the real, essential person- and the personas, or personages, whom we live out in the eyes of others. We humans tend to pretend to be the person others expect of us, we act out the person we feel our society or upbringing demands of us, rather than ‘being ourselves’; and so transformation of our real character is something which is left largely unaddressed in many lives. Truly did Shakespeare write from a worldly perspective that all the world’s a stage, and we are merely the players / actors. And as Napoleon said, “One becomes the man of one’s uniform”; the persona, the act we live, comes to influence the real self, the real person, like the clown who can’t stop clowning around offstage. In Biblical terms, we allow the world to push us into its mould, psychologically and sociologically, rather than allowing ourselves to be transformed by the renewing of our minds by the things of God’s word and His Son (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em>). We so easily allow the world to squeeze us into its mould, rather than being personally transformed by our relationship with the Lord (<em><a href='B:520 12:2'>Rom 12:2</a></em> J:B. Phillips).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:3'>Rom 12:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, accordingly as God has dealt to each man a measure of faith</em>- This continues the reference to God’s will in :2. Faith is given, in the same way as we are called, predestined and moved towards salvation by the work and gift of the Spirit. This should humble us; in the same way as in the preceding chapter, Paul has urged Gentile believers to be humbled by the process of predestination, and not think highly of themselves because it is all of grace. And it was even of grace that Paul was reminding them of this. The awesome depth of this grace leads us to "think soberly", a word play in Greek:&nbsp;<em>phroneo sophroneo</em>. It elicits from us deep thinking- that God should give us faith, as Jacob was loved and Esau hated, quite apart from our works.</p><p>The next verses go on to speak of the manifestation of the gifts in a practical form, which in the first century included miraculous works. There was exhortation to “seek the best gifts”; and yet they were distributed “according as God hath dealt to every man according to the measure of faith” (<em><a href='B:520 12:3'>Rom 12:3</a></em> and context). He gave to each of them in the early church gifts which reflected the measure of faith shown by the individual believer. How much they could achieve for their Lord was limited by their faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:4'>Rom 12:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members do not have the same office</em>- Paul was writing this from Corinth, where he had had to make the same points (1 Corinthians 12). It seems the Romans, just as the Corinthians and many today, had failed to distinguish between unity and uniformity. Each baptized member of Christ has some function- and this is important to remember especially when great emphasis is placed upon pastoral teams and the like. This doesn't mean that every member of Christ has no function; each must indeed be empowered to function. "Office" is&nbsp;<em>praxis</em>, and we shall be judged according to our&nbsp;<em>praxis</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 16:27'>Mat 16:27</a></em>), according to how we have used the Lord's potentials which we have been dealt. We need to seek and enquire what are His hopes for us, and to devote our lives to serving as intended.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:5'>Rom 12:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and although different, still members one of another</em>- We are to live according to our status; if we are baptized into the body of Christ and counted as Him, according to the theology of imputed righteousness explained earlier in Romans, then we are to act as part of the body. The Greek here could bear a retranslation, hinging around&nbsp;<em>kata heis</em>, AV "every one", to the effect that we are "one body in Christ, and on account of&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;the one Christ, members one of another". He is the unique bond between persons in Him. In another figure, He is the yoke who binds others together so that the burden is lighter. Human relationships are almost impossible to maintain on any intimate level- without the binding influence of the Lord Jesus. This is why He could reason in John 17 that Christian unity would be the supreme witness to Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:6'>Rom 12:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophecy according to the proportion of our faith</em>- "Grace",&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, is so often associated with the gift of the Spirit. That gift is the Lord Jesus in our hearts transforming us into His image, and such a promise is for all time. But in the first century, this gift had miraculous manifestations which are not now available. The&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, "grace", was given then and still is now; but the&nbsp;<em>charisma</em>, the gifts according to that grace, vary in form over time just as they did in form between persons in the first century. Those given prophecy were to use that gift according as they had been given it. This may seem obvious, but clearly there was a tendency to want to serve the Lord in ways other than His ideal intention. Paul's obsession with ministry to the Jews, when this was Peter's intended work, is a case in point.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:7'>Rom 12:7</a></em><em>&nbsp;Or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry. Or he that teaches, to his teaching-&nbsp;</em>See on <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The ministry that I received</em>. The gifts Paul mentions in :6-8 are all gifts relevant to leaders rather than the mass of church membership. Perhaps Paul was writing with his eye on himself; or maybe he was particularly addressing the leadership of the church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:8'>Rom 12:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>Or he that exhorts, to his exhorting; he that gives, let him do it with generosity. He that rules, with diligence. He that shows mercy, with cheerfulness</em>- The words used here are repeated in Paul's appeals for the Corinthians to give to the Jerusalem Poor Fund with cheerful giving (<em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>) and to support that ministry generously. Paul will mention this later in Romans. It was a major preoccupation with him and he may well be hinting here at Roman support of it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:9'>Rom 12:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil. Cling to that which is good</em>- The appeal here for unfeigned love (also in <em><a href='B:540 6:6'>2Co 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:22'>1Pe 2:22</a></em>) highlights the fact that there can so easily be the appearance of love without true love. And this warning must be given its true weight by us all as we seek to make true love the defining feature of our living and being. The Greek for "cling to" is used nine other times in the NT and always with the sense of clinging to persons. The Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:470 7:17-20'>Mat 7:17-20</a></em> is that we can in fact quite easily tell the good from the evil persons by looking at their fruits. Perhaps Paul has that in view here. We are to cling or cleave to those in Christ who have good fruits and keep away from those with evil fruits. If we don't do this, then our love is going to become hypocritical and feigned.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:10'>Rom 12:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honour to others</em>- "Love" is claimed by everyone; :9 has challenged us to love unfeigned, unpretended and genuine. That love or&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;is the love of Christ, loving as He loved us- for in that is the 'newness' of the command to love one another "as I have loved you" (<em><a href='B:500 13:34'>Joh 13:34</a></em>). That&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;love will issue in a brotherly love for each other and respect / honour to others on account of their place in the body of Christ. If we seek to love our Christian brethren on the basis of their behaviour, we will find it impossible to love many or that deeply. We have to respect them for their status in Christ; and writing Romans from Corinth, Paul had gone very far in doing that. For he loved the Corinthians, so weak in understanding and behaviour, with the love of Christ- in that he respected their status as in Him. Paul uses the same Greek word for "honour" in reflecting that the Corinthians, and all believers, had been bought with a "price"- the blood of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>). All who have been bought with that are to be honoured- for they are of great price.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:11'>Rom 12:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Be diligent, not lazy, fervent in spirit in your serving the Lord</em>- This is another of Paul's allusions to the Lord's parables, this time warning the Romans not to be like the lazy servant in the parable (<em><a href='B:470 25:26'>Mat 25:26</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 12:11'>Rom 12:11</a></em>). "Fervent in spirit" in the Lord's service is a phrase elsewhere used only about Apollos (<em><a href='B:510 18:25'>Act 18:25</a></em>) who was also at Corinth (<em><a href='B:510 19:1'>Act 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:4'>1Co 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:6'>1Co 4:6</a></em>) from where Paul was writing Romans. This kind of internal congruence deepens our faith in the veracity of the records; Paul was writing with the example of Apollos before him, and he urged the Romans to be like him. Paul is not simply appealing for zeal as opposed to laziness. He asks them to allow the Spirit to work in them, to be open to being used- and this would make them anything but lazy. There was a common association between slavery and laziness; for the slaves were often in such a dead end situation that there was no motivation for zeal and initiative. But slavery to the Lord Jesus, energized by His Spirit, was not at all like that, but the very opposite.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:12'>Rom 12:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing earnestly in prayer</em>- "Hope" in the New Testament refers to a confident expectation, not a vague hope-for-the-best. It is only by having such a certain expectation of a place in the Kingdom of God, an eternity assured at this moment, that a person can rejoice. One cannot have joy at a prospect which is vague or uncertain. And it is this sure hope, arising as it does from our status in Christ, which alone can make us endure tribulation and keep on in prayer, rather than praying on the cusp of emotion or desperate need. All this is the practical outworking of our status in Christ, and the guarantee of eternity by God’s grace, giving us the hope which will make us endure all things (<em><a href='B:520 5:2-3'>Rom 5:2-3</a></em>). "Tribulation" is literally&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>tribulation; Paul expected the Lord's return in his generation, and so envisaged that the tribulation of the Olivet prophecy would be experienced by his readers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:13'>Rom 12:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Responding to the necessities of the saints by sharing, accustomed to showing hospitality</em>- The same word for "responding" AV "distributing" is to be used in <em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em> in the context of donating towards the Jerusalem Poor Fund, and surely Paul had this in mind here. We note the repeated commandments to show hospitality, literally a love of foreigners (<em><a href='B:610 3:2'>1Ti 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:2'>Heb 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:9'>1Pe 4:9</a></em>). The mentality of the first century was very parochial; people loved their own, identifying themselves according to their ethnicity or birth place- and disliked others. The love of foreigners was achievable only by perceiving that we are all foreigners to God, who have been accepted by grace into a new identity.</p><p>The amount of travel by the early brethren was extraordinary, and could only have been impressive to the world around them. The same could be said of us today, regularly travelling for days across Russia and North America to attend gatherings, flying and hitch hiking around Africa to meet each other… driving hours to meeting. The NT letters feature passages which served as letters of recommendation (<em><a href='B:520 16:1'>Rom 16:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:10-12'>1Co 16:10-12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:25-30'>Phi 2:25-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:7-9'>Col 4:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:21'>Eph 6:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:22'>Phm 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em>). Thus hospitality became a required Christian virtue (<em><a href='B:520 12:13'>Rom 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:2'>Heb 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:9'>1Pe 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:2'>1Ti 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>). Even ordinary Christians could count on this hospitality. Yet “security and hospitality when travelling had traditionally been the privilege of the powerful, who had relied upon a network of patronage and friendship, created by wealth. The letters of recommendation disclose the fact that these domestic advantages were now extended to the whole household of faith, who are accepted on trust, though complete strangers”. This was the practical outcome of the doctrines believed; a member of the&nbsp;<em>ekklesia&nbsp;</em>of God would be welcomed as a brother or sister in Laodicea, Ephesus, Corinth or Rome. And so it should be amongst us today. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:14'>Rom 12:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Bless them that persecute you; bless and curse not</em>- We must bless / forgive those who persecute us (blessing and forgiveness are closely linked in Scripture). This is clearly to be done without waiting for the persecutor to stop or repent. Forgiveness without repentance has to be offered. Paul would have recalled how he had persecuted the Christians, and the likes of Stephen had blessed him rather than wished curses upon him; and those blessings had lead to his forgiveness and redemption, to God’s glory. The Roman church was perhaps under specific persecution of some kind, or Paul maybe foresaw the persecution which would come under Nero.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:15'>Rom 12:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Rejoice with them that rejoice, weep with them that weep</em>- Such a fellow feeling for others is only possible if we are connected to them within the same body; and so this ability to connect with the emotions of others is an outcome of our being united in the body of Christ. For <em><a href='B:530 12:26'>1Co 12:26</a></em> clarifies that it is on account of our joint membership in His body that the members have such connection with each other.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:16'>Rom 12:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>Be of the same mind one toward another-&nbsp;</em>This is not an appeal for uniformity of thinking or interpretation. The one mind which we should each have is that of the Lord Jesus, as stated explicitly in Philippians 2. Another way of expressing His mind would be His Spirit; we are to view each other with the eyes, spirit or mind of the Lord Jesus. And the earlier chapters in Romans have explained how He looks upon us as perfect, with righteousness imputed to us. Paul's attitude to the Corinthians, from where he was writing Romans, is surely the parade example of practicing this in church life:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Do not be arrogant, but condescend to those who are lowly. Be not wise in your own conceits</em>- We would rather expect: 'Do not be proud, but be lowly'. Instead we are asked to condescend to, or accept, the humble. Our humility is shown in our attitude to the humble. Our attitudes to others is therefore read as a significant reflection of our pride or humility. Not being wise "in your own conceits" carries the idea as GNB of "Do not think of yourselves as wise". It is recognizing our unwisdom which helps our humility; and the idea that we are ourselves wise is arrogance. That is exactly the teaching of 1 Corinthians 1. The acceptance of God’s wisdom, as extolled at the end of Romans 11, means recognizing that we of ourselves are not wise; and this is humbling:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:17'>Rom 12:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Render to no one evil for evil. Take thought to do things honourably in the sight of all men-&nbsp;</em>The spirit of grace received from God is that we received good for our evil; to render evil for evil, when we received good for evil, is therefore a denial of the grace we received. <em><a href='B:590 5:15'>1Th 5:15</a></em> also teaches us not to render evil for evil, but on the basis that we should be consumed with always following after what is good. And it is with this thought that this section concludes in :21- we should overcome evil with good, and not with more evil. For this, in the bigger picture, is God’s way of triumphing over evil through His grace in Christ. "Honourably" is literally 'good'; the idea is not that Paul inserts here a random injunction to give no bad appearances to people. Instead of rewarding evil with evil, we instead should plan to do&nbsp;<em>good&nbsp;</em>'do things honourably', NEV before men. For this is the summary conclusion of :21, that evil is to be overcome by good.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all</em>- The "all" in view may refer to those within the church, and that may be the purview of :17 also. The majority of the pressures in Paul's life came from within the ecclesia. His life was based amongst the ecclesias; thus to him "all men" were the believers, not the world as a whole (<em><a href='B:480 9:50'>Mar 9:50</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 12:18'>Rom 12:18</a></em>).</p><p>Conflict in the ecclesia shouldn’t actually surprise us. We should expect it. For it was the ecclesia of Christ’s day who were the ones who rejected Him. “As far as it depends on you" surely suggests that Paul saw conflict with others as arising due to others’ attitudes over which we have no control. Paul's inspired wording tacitly accepts that we often cannot live in peace with others because it's not possible given their failures; but we can change&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;attitudes, and that is the point. Paul's own example was of not being at peace with the majority of the brotherhood- all in Asia turned against him. Division and interpersonal tensions are inevitable- but we must ensure they are never our fault, for they betray a serious failure in the principles of living in the body of Christ, and living under grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord</em>- The desire for vengeance may well refer to conflicts within the church. For "the wrath of God" would be the punishment of those who had done wrong, and this wrath will be poured out at the last day upon those who are responsible to the Lord. The comfort that the Lord's wrath would be upon those who have wronged us is therefore only appropriate to those who are responsible to judgment- largely those within the church.</p><p>We must remember that “Vengeance is&nbsp;<em>mine</em>&nbsp;not ours, not the state’s, and requital" (<em><a href='B:50 32:35'>Deu 32:35</a></em>). That taking of vengeance, that requital, was worked out by God on the cross. There the Lord Jesus was clothed with the ‘garments of vengeance’ (<em><a href='B:290 59:17'>Isa 59:17</a></em>); the day of the crucifixion was “the day of vengeance" (<em><a href='B:290 63:4'>Isa 63:4</a></em>). This is one reason why God doesn’t operate a tit-for-tat requital of our sins upon our heads- because He dealt with sin and His vengeance for it in the cross, not by any other way. Hence David calls Yahweh the “God of revenge", the one&nbsp;<em>alone</em>&nbsp;to whom vengeance belongs (<em><a href='B:230 94:1'>Psa 94:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 94:3'>Psa 94:3</a></em>). Our response to all this is to believe that truly vengeance is God and therefore we will&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>avenge ourselves (<em><a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a></em>). I take this to apply to all the micro-level ‘takings of vengeance’ which we so easily do in our words, body language, attitudes etc:, in response to the hurt received from others. The cross alone enables us to break the cycle.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:20'>Rom 12:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:230 140:9-10'>Psa 140:9-10</a></em>.</p><p><em>But if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire upon his head</em>- The fire of condemnation at the judgment has already been kindled by men's attitudes now (<em><a href='B:490 12:49'>Luk 12:49</a></em>), and hence by doing good to such men when they abuse us we (now) "heap coals of fire upon his head". "Your enemy" here must therefore refer to someone who is responsible to the last judgment, i:e. in the ecclesia (cp. <em><a href='B:600 3:15'>2Th 3:15</a></em>, which implies 'an enemy' was first century vocabulary for a shunned and rejected false teacher). See on <em><a href='B:720 1:23'>Jud 1:23</a></em>. By showing grace to your enemy within the church who refuses to repent, you are actually making his final punishment worse.</p><p>But I don't understand this as meaning that our motivation for such kindness should be the gleeful thought that we will thereby earn for them greater and more painful condemnation at the last day. Such motives would surely be foreign to all we have seen and known in the Father and Son. Rather am I attracted to the suggestion that there is a reference here to the practice, originating in Egypt, of putting a pan of hot coals over the head of a person who has openly repented. In which case, we would be being taught to show grace to our enemies, in order that we might bring them to repentance. This would chime in with the teaching elsewhere in Romans that God’s goodness leads us to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). And this is how we should be, especially with our brethren. The idea of excluding our brethren seems to me the very opposite of the spirit of grace which we have received.</p><p>Paul quotes the words of <em><a href='B:240 25:21-22'>Pro 25:21-22</a></em> here. But he omits to apply the last part of <em><a href='B:240 25:22'>Pro 25:22</a></em> to us: "And the Lord shall reward you". Paul's point is that we should not resist evil, leave God to glorify His Name- and enable this to happen, without seeking for a personal reward for our righteousness. Thus <em><a href='B:240 25:21-22'>Pro 25:21-22</a></em>: “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat... for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee” is quoted here, but with the pointed omission of the last clause: "The Lord shall reward thee". It's as if Paul is saying: 'The condemnation of the wicked, when&nbsp;<em>God,&nbsp;</em>not you, pours out His vengeance, will glorify Him. So do your part to bring this about, don't worry about the reward you're promised so much as the bringing about of His glory'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 12:21'>Rom 12:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good</em>- It will not do to glumly conclude that evil shall only be overcome at the Lord's return. We are to right now overcome evil, not by fighting it in the world nor by seeking to brutally repress it within our own minds; but to proactively focus on the good and thereby overcome it. God likewise overcomes evil through the overcoming of His Son on the cross (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>). And that is to be our pattern too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a></em> The question has been asked as to how the words of Romans 13 can stand true, with their implication that Government ministers are God’s representatives, punishing sinners and upholding righteousness, and therefore should be obeyed. Many believers are pressured by such ministers to join armies and in other ways too, to break the law of Christ. How, for example, could those words have been true in Hitler’s Germany or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan?</p><p>First it must be remembered that there are other passages which do command our submission to human authorities: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God:&nbsp; Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (<em><a href='B:670 1:13-17'>1Pe 1:13-17</a></em>). Whilst these words stand true, Peter himself also disobeyed human authority, with the comment that we must obey God rather than men. When there is a conflict in allegiance created, we must obey God and disobey anyone or any institution that commands us to disobey Him. And Paul likewise- the man who was jailed repeatedly for breaking the law: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men” (<em><a href='B:630 3:1-2'>Tit 3:1-2</a></em>).<br/>But the Romans 13 passage goes much further, saying that these “ministers” are ordained by God on His behalf, and therefore must be obeyed. Logically, therefore, one would have to obey whatever they said. Otherwise we would always be having to decide whether or not a Government minister was really ordained in God’s behalf, or not. And Romans 13 seems to imply that all ministers are “ministers of God”. And so for this passage I wish to suggest that it specifically refers to submission to the elders and apostles of the first century ecclesia, empowered as they were with the miraculous Spirit gifts and direct revelations of wisdom and judgment:&nbsp;<br/>There is great stress in Romans 13 that these “powers” punish evil / sinfulness. This is just not true of human Governments. Yet it is appropriate if the “powers” spoken of here are within the ecclesia. So we will consider the passage phrase by phrase- and we find that almost every Greek noun or verb in it is used elsewhere in a specifically ecclesial context.<br/><em>“Let every one of you be in subjection to the governing authorities</em>”<em>&nbsp;(:1).</em><br/>The Greek for “Higher” means ‘to excel, to be superior, better than, to surpass”. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:570 2:3'>Phi 2:3</a></em>: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other&nbsp;<em>better than themselves</em>”. We may respect human ministers but we can scarcely esteem them better than ourselves in a spiritual sense. Yet authority held by ecclesial elders is earnt and not demanded- based on our respect of them as brethren more mature in Christ than we are.<br/>“<em>For there is no power but by God:&nbsp;the powers that be have been ordained</em>…”</p><p>“Powers” is s:w. same word <em><a href='B:540 10:8'>2Co 10:8</a></em> “our apostolic a<em>uthority</em>”; “<em>the power&nbsp;</em>which the Lord hath given me” (Paul; <em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>). “Not because we the apostles have not&nbsp;<em>power</em>” (<em><a href='B:600 3:9'>2Th 3:9</a></em>). Those powers are “ordained”- s:w. <em><a href='B:510 15:2'>Act 15:2</a></em>, where Paul and Barnabas were “determined”, s:w. “ordained”, to go to Jerusalem as representative elders; the family of Stephanas “addicted themselves”, literally ‘ordained themselves’, to the work of ministry in the ecclesia. Note how here as in Romans 13, the ideas or being&nbsp;<em>ordained</em>&nbsp;to be a&nbsp;<em>minister&nbsp;</em>also occur together:&nbsp;<br/><em>Ordained by God</em><br/>In the sense of <em><a href='B:530 12:28'>1Co 12:28</a></em>: “<em>And God&nbsp;</em>hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues”:&nbsp;<br/>“<em>Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists…</em>” (:2)<br/>Alexander “hath greatly&nbsp;<em>withstood</em>&nbsp;s:w. resisteth our words” (<em><a href='B:620 4:15'>2Ti 4:15</a></em>)- the words of elders like Paul. This doesn’t mean that elders are beyond any criticism- for the same Greek word is used of how Paul “withstood” Peter when he gave in to legalism and rejected grace (<em><a href='B:550 2:11'>Gal 2:11</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;“<em>What God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror</em>…” &nbsp;(:2,3)<br/>“Terror” translates the Greek word used for how “fear” came upon the ecclesia when the elders exercised their powers of the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:510 2:43'>Act 2:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:11'>Act 5:11</a></em>). Initially, Corinth showed such “fear” towards Paul (<em><a href='B:540 7:11'>2Co 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:15'>2Co 7:15</a></em>). Elders should rebuke publicly those who sin, that others in the ecclesia might “fear” (<em><a href='B:610 5:20'>1Ti 5:20</a></em>). The situation in the first century as far as the authorities of the world are concerned was actually the very opposite of what we read here in Romans. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:670 3:14'>1Pe 3:14</a></em>, telling the believers to endure persecution from the authorities, not to cave in to their demands, and “be not afraid of their&nbsp;<em>fear</em>”. Note that the Greek word for “afraid” occurs in <em><a href='B:520 13:3'>Rom 13:3</a></em> - we should be “afraid” of the powers God has placed in the ecclesia. The fact the two words occur together in both Romans and Peter leads us to the conclusion: ‘Respect and “fear” those who are elders truly; but don’t fear / respect those who are elders in name only and are in reality far from grace”:&nbsp;<br/>“<em>not a terror to good works, but to the evil. If you wish to live without fear of the authorities?</em>&nbsp;(:3)<br/>The Greek word for “fear” is the same word in <em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em>, which criticizes Peter for being “afraid” of the Jerusalem elders who were teaching legalism. Paul doesn’t mean we should fear an elder merely because they have the office of an elder; but we fear / respect those who are indeed spiritually “higher” than us:&nbsp;<br/>“<em>Do that which is good And you shall have praise from the same</em>”<br/>This certainly isn’t true of worldly authorities and rulers. They don’t praise righteousness, and they certainly didn’t in the first century. Yet the same word is used in <em><a href='B:540 8:18'>2Co 8:18</a></em> of how Timothy was “praised” in the ecclesias. Good elders and healthy ecclesias will give praise / encouragement to those who deserve it:&nbsp;<br/>“<em>For he is a minister of God</em>” (:4)<br/>Gk:&nbsp;<em>Diakonos</em>, sometimes translated “deacon”. The word is used 31 times in the N:T:, nearly always about ecclesial elders / ministers / servants. Paul speaks of himself and Timothy with the very same words: a “minister of God” (<em><a href='B:540 6:4'>2Co 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:2'>1Th 3:2</a></em>), who therefore ought to be listened to:&nbsp;<br/>…to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain<br/>This seems to be a reference to the ability which some elders had in the first century to execute physical affliction upon those who were disobedient. Peter smote Ananias and Sapphira dead. Paul seems to warn the Corinthians that he could “not spare” them if he convicted them of apostasy on his next visit. It&nbsp;even seems that the sicknesses spoken of in James 5 are a direct result of sinful behaviour, and the gift of healing could be exercised by the elders in the case of repentance. Jesus Himself threatened immediate physical judgment, presumably through the hands of His representatives, upon some in the ecclesias of Revelation 2, 3. Respect for elders is something taught throughout the N:T. letters- “remember them that have the rule over you” (<em><a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a></em>). Here the writer clearly refers to elders in the ecclesia, for he bids his readers consider the end of those men’s faithful way of life and to follow their example. And yet they are described as ‘rulers’. It’s as if the point is that the real rulers of a first century believer were not the Roman administrators, but the ministers of God within their ecclesia. In illiterate ecclesias or those without access to the written scrolls containing God’s word, the elders would have played a more critical role in their relationship with God than in our age.</p><p><em>“…&nbsp;For he is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil- be afraid For he carries not the sword in vain. For he is a minister of God, an avenger of God’s anger to him that does evil. Therefore you must be in subjection, not only because of God’s anger against sin, but also for the sake of your conscience. For this cause you pay tribute also</em>”<em>&nbsp;(:4-6)</em><br/>This could be referring to the Lord’s well known example of paying tribute, and simply saying that the principle of submission to authority should extend out of the ecclesia, to all those who have power over us- so long as this does not contradict our conscience toward Christ. But it could also be a reference to some form of tithing or regular support of elders. There is historical evidence that this went on early in the Christian church.<br/>“Be subject” uses a Greek word elsewhere used about submission to elders (<em><a href='B:530 16:16'>1Co 16:16</a></em>). Note how the word occurs in <em><a href='B:530 14:34'>1Co 14:34</a></em> - the sisters were commanded “to be under obedience” to their men Gk:. I take this to refer to the need for those sisters to be submissive to their appointed elder. When we meet the word again in the command “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (<em><a href='B:560 5:22'>Eph 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:24'>Eph 5:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:18'>Col 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:5'>Tit 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:5'>1Pe 3:5</a></em>), I take this as meaning that they should treat him as they would an elder- in that Paul assumes he will teach and inspire her as the elders ought to have been doing:&nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;“<em>For they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing</em>” (:6)<br/>The question arises,&nbsp;<em>what</em>&nbsp;thing?&nbsp; If the reference is to their reflecting of God’s judgment against those who sin, this is simply not true of human Governments. The first century authorities were persecuting the Christians, fabricating untruth against them, killing them, and insisting that those who refused to accept Caesar as Lord be punished. The words can only be true of the ministers of God of whom we read elsewhere in the N:T:- i:e:, the ecclesial elders:&nbsp;<br/>The Greek phrase for “attending continually” is a catchphrase usually employed to describe the zealous pastoral care of the early apostles: “These all&nbsp;<em>continued</em>&nbsp;with one accord in prayer…<em>continuing daily</em>&nbsp;with one accord…and breaking bread…we will&nbsp;<em>give ourselves continually</em>&nbsp;to prayer, and to the ministry another Romans 13 idea of the word” (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:4'>Act 6:4</a></em>). By using the phrase, Paul is undoubtedly pointing us back to the example of the early apostles / elders:&nbsp;<br/><em>“Render to all their dues” (:7)</em><br/>The Greek for “dues” is found in <em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em> about the due which the Gentile believers owe to materially support their Jewish brethren. We have no ‘due’ to this world (<em><a href='B:520 13:8'>Rom 13:8</a></em> Gk:, s:w:), but our due is to love each other in the brotherhood. But admittedly Paul does seem in the next verses to extend the principle of submission further than just within the ecclesia. In the same way as elders should only be respected if they had earnt that respect, and were leading brethren in the way of Christ, so too the authorities of the world should only be followed insofar as they did not lead believers into disobedience to Christ: “…tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (:8-10 AV).</p><p>We must remember that the <em><a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a></em> passage about submission to human authority was written before Nero's persecution of Christians. It seems to be written on the assumption that justice is being done by officialdom. Romans seems to have been written around AD60. The background situation in Rome, to which Paul was speaking, needs to be understood if we are to understand Paul in his context. In AD58 there were major revolts in Rome against the taxation system (as recorded in Tacitus,&nbsp;<em>Annals</em>&nbsp;13:50,51). Jews were exempt from paying some taxes (they were allowed to pay them to the temple in Jerusalem); and Roman citizens also were exempt. There was therefore a huge amount of resentment from the Gentile, non-Roman citizen population who had to pay heavy taxes (1). It could well be that some of the Roman Christians were tempted to share in this unrest; and Paul is instead urging them to obey those who had the rule over them, in the sense of paying their taxes, rendering tribute to whom tribute was due. Ben Witherington, one of academic scholarship's most well-known and learned students of Paul, significantly doesn't see in the Romans 13 passage any suggestion that Christians should therefore bear arms, as this would contradict Paul's teaching about&nbsp;<em>non</em>-violent response to evil in the same section of Romans; rather does he understand the teaching about submission to authorities as being specifically in this taxation context (2).</p><p>(1) Tacitus,&nbsp;<em>Historiae</em>&nbsp;5:5:1, Josephus,&nbsp;<em>Antiquities Of The Jews</em>&nbsp;16:45,160-161; references in Ben Witherington,&nbsp;<em>The Paul Quest</em>&nbsp;(Leicester: I:V:P:, 1998) p. 180:&nbsp;<br/>(2) Ben Witherington,&nbsp;<em>The Paul Quest</em>&nbsp;(Leicester: I:V:P:, 1998) pp. 178-184. He comments that "most ancient persons took it for granted that governing authorities have their authority from God" (p. 181). When Paul writes this to the Romans, he could well be quoting a well-known maxim- and thus using it in order to persuade the Roman Christians to pay their taxes.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let every one of you be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no power but by God, and the powers that be have been ordained by God-&nbsp;</em>I have suggested the possibility of this section referring to elders within the church. But it is also possible to understand the section as referring to civil powers, seeing that this was written before Nero's persecution of the Christians. We would then have a classic example of where Paul's letters address specific issues within a very specific time limited context. What he writes here about the nature of 'the powers that be' was true for the Rome ecclesia at that point in time; but it was not true for them some years later under Nero's persecution, nor was it true for believers under Hitler etc.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:2'>Rom 13:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment</em>- Judgment from the powers that be, rather than condemnation from God. The implication is that there were individuals within the church at Rome who were seriously misbehaving and would face criminal justice as a result. The letter of 1 Peter seems to address the same problem in the Jewish congregations of southern Turkey. Put this together with the shameful behaviour of the church at Corinth, and the similar very bad issues addressed in the other NT epistles. Titus is warned to strengthen the eldership, whilst there were many very bad behaviours amongst the congregation on Crete; and we find the same approach taken in advising Timothy about the mess at Ephesus. The overall picture is rather poor; the impression is of churches composed of many who seriously misbehaved, living alongside some wonderfully spiritual examples. The Lord's letters in Revelation give the same impression. Yet churches of our age face the problem of supposedly stronger members quitting because of the perceived unspirituality of the majority. And we see that there was no way that Paul was advising disfellowship of immoral members of the congregation apart from in nuanced and extreme situations such as 1 Corinthians 5.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:3'>Rom 13:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. If you wish to live without fear of the authorities- then do that which is good And you shall have praise from the same-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :2, this implies there was serious criminal misbehaviour amongst some in the church at Rome. And yet Paul writes in such warm terms about the church in chapter 1. This is the great challenge of Christianity; to accept the weakness of others, not turn away from it nor justify it, within the larger framework of knowing that they too are partakers of grace and salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil- be afraid For he carries not the sword in vain</em>- The mention of the sword implies the death penalty, which means that the church contained members guilty of serious criminal misbehaviour.</p><p><em>For he is a minister of God, an avenger of God’s anger to him that does evil</em>- The connection is with how the same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 12:19'>Rom 12:19</a></em>: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord". It would be possible to conclude that some within the church were behaving in a criminal way towards others in the church, doing things to them which warranted the death penalty. And yet Paul has so much to say to them about grace and the certainty of salvation by faith. These considerations enable us to review chapters 1 and 2, which seem to speak as if murder and some of the worst forms of sexual perversion and abuse were being practiced within the church, just as they were by Israel in the desert.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:5'>Rom 13:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:690 3:18'>1Jn 3:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore you must be in subjection, not only because of God’s anger against sin, but also for the sake of your conscience-&nbsp;</em>God’s judgment would be manifest through the local authorities. But subjection to the authorities was not just in order to avoid judgment against sin, but because of a sense of conscience. Those authorities represented Him, and therefore quiet obedience to them was part of conscience towards God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:6'>Rom 13:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this cause you pay tribute also-&nbsp;</em>In the opening commentary on <em><a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a></em> I gave evidence that in Rome there was widespread objection to paying taxes. Paul assumes their obedience- "you pay tribute". This is a great feature of Paul- he had such a positive spirit about brethren whom he knew to be far less than himself spiritually.</p><p><em>For they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing-&nbsp;</em>This kind of religious language led me to suggest in the opening commentary that the authorities in view may in fact be within the church. But if not, then we can say that the language of the sanctuary is being consciously used about the ministers of the state. Just as believing slaves were to see their masters as representing Christ, so the Roman believers were to see tax collectors as requiring obedience&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they were part of the Divine system of things. And this is one of the arts of spiritual life- to see all our human interactions in this world as being performed as unto the Lord we have in Heaven and within the context of His system.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:7'>Rom 13:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Render to all their dues. Tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour-&nbsp;</em>This could mean 'to all magistrates', and surely Paul has his mind on the Lord's command to render unto Caesar what is his due (<em><a href='B:470 22:21'>Mat 22:21</a></em>) rather than get involved in any form of anti-Caesar movement on the basis of refusing to pay taxes. The Christian movement indeed rejected Caesar as Lord, but there was no need to articulate this through not paying taxes to him. But the next verse shows that Paul develops a wider context here. Not simply should taxes be paid, but a general spirit of respect towards others, including "honour".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:8'>Rom 13:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>Owe no one anything, apart from to love one another-&nbsp;</em>The 'owing' would be in the context of accumulating tax debts in the hope they would never be demanded or enforced. Or perhaps Paul does literally feel that material debt to others is to be avoided at all costs. He has spoken of honouring and respecting persons in :6 and :7, and he sees keeping out of debt as a way of ensuring that we can respect persons for who they are and without the background factor of appearing to respect those to whom we are in debt. In low income situations, petty debt is a way of life; perhaps Paul is urging avoiding this. The debt we have is to love others, for we have been so loved by the Lord, and we are to realize that our need to pay that back must be articulated in terms of loving our neighbour- not that we can ever repay our debt to the Lord. Paul's conception of love to the world around him was clearly rooted in the need to preach to them, rather than provide material help. He felt he had a debt to love others (<em><a href='B:520 13:8'>Rom 13:8</a></em>); yet also a debt to preach (<em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>). His debt was to love in the form of preaching. Paul has opened Romans by speaking of our unpayable debt to the Lord Jesus: "I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also" (Rom. 1:14,15). Our debt is to the Lord Jesus who paid such a huge price for our redemption. But that debt has been transmuted. We have an unpayable debt to share Him with others. And that is one form of "love" for our neighbour. Any humanitarian kindness to others must therefore be meshed together with presenting the Gospel to them. Otherwise we are not even attempting to repay the debt. This is the debt burden we should feel, as we see men rushing around their lives headlong towards an eternal grave.</p><p><em>For he that loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law-&nbsp;</em>The law was fulfilled by the Lord's death on the cross. The death of the cross is the ultimate love of neighbour as self, the final honour, respect, submission etc. which forms the context here. The Lord's work and death can therefore really be participated in by us- in the small daily things of life such as kindness and respect to others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:9'>Rom 13:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet- and if there be any other commandment-&nbsp;</em>Paul's references to the Gospels suggests that he had carefully meditated upon the passages to which he consciously alludes. The fact and way in which he&nbsp;<em>alludes</em>&nbsp;rather than quotes verbatim reflects the fact he had thought through and absorbed the teaching of the passages rather than learning them parrot fashion. For example, in <em><a href='B:470 19:18-19'>Mat 19:18-19</a></em> the Lord Jesus combines two quotations from the Law: <em><a href='B:20 20:12-16'>Exo 20:12-16</a></em> followed by <em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>. Paul, in a different context, to prove a different point, combines those same two passages, although separating them by a brief comment (<em><a href='B:520 13:9'>Rom 13:9</a></em>). This surely indicates that he had meditated upon how his Lord was using the Law, and mastered it so that he could use it himself.</p><p><em>It is summed up in this word, namely: You shall love your neighbour as yourself-&nbsp;</em>The intention of all the various laws was "love". Likewise the fruit of the Spirit is in the singular- "love". Love is the point of maturity to which we are all travelling (1 Corinthians 13). The cross was the fulfilling of all law in that there love was articulated to its ultimate term.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Love works no evil to his neighbour. Love therefore is the fulfilment of the law-&nbsp;</em>This looks at love from a negative aspect- love is the summation of all commandments, it is positively a loving of neighbour; but also working no evil is likewise another way of putting it. Yet the two sides are in parallel- positively, proactively doing good to neighbour is the same as working no evil to neighbour. This addresses the idea that 'I do no evil to others; I just keep myself to myself and have my own personal beliefs about Jesus, sit behind my screen and press the right buttons at times, no need for church, I just believe in my heart'. Such an attitude is increasingly popular in our disconnected and dysfunctional world, where people seem unable to cope with personal relationships. But to work no evil is part of doing proactive good. And remember that love is the fulfilment of the law, as epitomized in the Lord's death upon the cross. One could go further, and argue that by not doing the proactive love to neighbour, we are actually working evil to neighbour- for sins of omission are every bit as real before God as sins of commission. Perhaps Paul has in mind the LXX of <em><a href='B:240 3:27-29'>Pro 3:27-29</a></em>, where withholding good from our neighbour is paralleled with devising evil against him or her.</p><p>The law of God was not a leash, a chain. For man is not a dog. Rather was it a springboard towards love. Total fulfilment of the Mosaic law would lead to a man called "love". The Lord Jesus fulfilled the law in His death on the cross, which was love to its ultimate term (Jn. 13:1). There, all things were fulfilled which were written in the law (Lk. 24:44). He came to fulfil the law, and He did so in His death on the cross. We are called to love as He did- to love as I have loved you, the new commandment. Rom. 8:3,4 has explained that we too can fulfil the righteousness of the law, because we are living in the Spirit as a result of the cross. His death there inspires us to live in His spirit, which is ultimately love. And thereby we fulfil the law, because His spirit is in us: "God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for a sin offering, condemned sin, in the flesh. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit". </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:11'>Rom 13:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And consider this too: Knowing the time, that already it is time for you to awake out of sleep-&nbsp;</em>God actually saw us as saved right from the beginning of the world; He purposed, and effectively it was done. Perhaps this is the hardest thing our faith has to grapple with. "Knowing the time, that for us, the hour already is to be aroused out of sleep" and be resurrected (<em><a href='B:520 13:11'>Rom 13:11</a></em> YLT) may mean (contrary to the implication of the AV) that for us who are with God now, the time of resurrection and salvation is now with us, and therefore we should live lives which answer to this fact. The day of salvation is in that sense&nbsp;<em>today</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a></em> Gk:). So sure is God’s word that it is as if the concept of a delay between its utterance and the fulfilment is something not to be considered. Thus "the vision" is an ellipsis for 'the fulfilment of the vision' in <em><a href='B:420 2:3'>Hab 2:3</a></em>. Although our day by day spirituality fluctuates, God is beyond time. He sees us either as an essentially good tree bringing forth good fruit, or as essentially bad (<em><a href='B:470 7:23'>Mat 7:23</a></em>). And yet my sense is that here we have yet another example of where the early believers fully expected the Lord's return in their lifetimes. This was not simply because they were mistaken, or because the Lord's scheduled return in the first century was delayed because the church wasn't ready for it. This expectation of the Lord's soon return is, it could be argued, actually part of the Christian faith. We are to live in expectation of His imminent return, whether or not we consider current events to align with the relevant prophecies.</p><p><em>For now is our salvation nearer to us than when we first believed-&nbsp;</em>The "salvation" is "the day" of the Lord's return (:12). We are chronologically nearer to that final salvation than when we first believed. This suggests a specific start point for 'first belief'; confirming that there is a specific point when a person becomes a believer, rather than belief being something drifted into as a result of upbringing or exposure to Christian preaching. And that specific point in time is surely baptism. "Nearer" uses the same word used by the Lord in saying that we know His coming is 'near' because of the fulfilment of the signs in the Olivet prophecy (<em><a href='B:470 24:32-33'>Mat 24:32-33</a></em>). Those signs were indeed fulfilled- His coming was indeed scheduled for the first century. But it was delayed, because the required preconditions of Israel's repentance, the spreading of the Gospel and the required spiritual fruit in the church were just not met. And so it has been delayed until our days. And we face the same urgent challenges in those same areas which the early church failed in.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em><em>&nbsp;The night is far spent, and the day is at hand-&nbsp;</em>See on :11. Whilst Paul clearly expected the Lord's return in his time, the statement and spirit of it is not wrong. For we are to live&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;the day of His coming is imminent. And of course we can die at any moment- and that for us will effectively be His return. The entire Gospel message begins with the usage of the same Greek word: The Kingdom&nbsp;<em>is at hand</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:470 3:2'>Mat 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:17'>Mat 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:7'>Mat 10:7</a></em> etc:). We are therefore to live in expectation of the imminent breaking forth of God’s Kingdom. And in a spiritual sense, the Kingdom has 'come near' s:w. "is at hand" in that our experience of life in Christ is our experience of the eternal life of God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 10:9'>Luk 10:9</a></em> "The Kingdom of God is come near / is at hand to you"). And yet in the literal sense, we see the day approaching s:w. "at hand", "near"; and we are to draw near to God in response (<em><a href='B:650 7:19'>Heb 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em>). <em><a href='B:660 4:8'>Jas 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:8'>Jas 5:8</a></em> are very clear. We draw near to God and He draws near to us, in that the Lord's coming draws near.</p><p><em>Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness and let us put on the armour of light-&nbsp;</em>It’s been pointed out and exemplified beyond cavil that Paul uses much Essene terminology. I suggest he does this in order to deconstruct it. When he urges the Roman Jews to “cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light”, calling his converts “the children of the light and children of the day” (<em><a href='B:590 5:5'>1Th 5:5</a></em>), Paul is alluding to the Essene ideas. But he’s saying that the children of light are to wage spiritual warfare against themselves, their own hearts, quit the things and habits of the flesh etc. – rather than charge off into literal battle with physical armour against the Romans. Likewise when Paul insists that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (<em><a href='B:520 9:14-18'>Rom 9:14-18</a></em>), he is not only repeating the Biblical record (<em><a href='B:20 9:12'>Exo 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:16'>Exo 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>), but he is alluding to the way that the Jewish&nbsp;<em>Book of Jubilees</em>&nbsp;claimed that Mastema the personal Satan and not God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:13'>Rom 13:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let us behave decently-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'honestly'. The context has spoken of paying taxes and not behaving as criminals.</p><p><em>As in the day</em>- The "day" spoken of in the context is that of the Lord's coming and His Kingdom. We are to live the kind of life we shall eternally live in God’s Kingdom. In this sense we have the eternal life.</p><p><em>Not in revelling and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in strife and jealousy-&nbsp;</em>We will not spend eternity doing these things, so we should not be doing them now. Again we sense that all these things were going on in the church at Rome, and yet Paul still speaks so lovingly and positively of them all. The very same set of issues were clearly evident in the church at Corinth. Again see on :2 the picture of the early converts is not very pleasant. All the more commendable therefore are those faithful ones who lived out their spiritual lives within such churches; and the Lord's letters in Revelation make just that point. But we note they were never exhorted to quit fellowship or association with the weak mass of Christian believers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:14'>Rom 13:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But put on the Lord Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>We must even after baptism "put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (<em><a href='B:520 13:14'>Rom 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:14'>Eph 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:14'>Col 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:8'>1Th 5:8</a></em>), even though&nbsp;<em>at baptism&nbsp;</em>we put on the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a></em>) and in prospect the flesh was co-crucified with Christ's flesh (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:18'>Rom 6:18</a></em>). By putting off the things of the flesh and putting on the things of the Lord in our lives, we live out the baptism principle again; and thereby we are "renewed in the spirit of your mind" (<em><a href='B:560 4:22-24'>Eph 4:22-24</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:580 2:6'>Col 2:6</a></em>. Baptism in this sense is an ongoing experience of death and resurrection with the Lord.</p><p><em>And make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires-&nbsp;</em>This is the simple key to overcoming temptation. "Provision" is related to the word for 'providence'. God’s overall providence in calling, planning and predestinating us to salvation has been mentioned earlier by Paul in this letter. Our response is to likewise seek to structure our own lives so that we do not provide opportunities for the flesh, but rather for the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As for the one who is weak in faith</em>- Remember that this practical section of Romans from chapters 12 to 16 is based upon the pure theology of Romans 1-8. Abraham, the spiritual father of us all, was not "weak in faith" (Rom. 4:19). The same words are used; and the point is that even those in the church who do not have the faith of Abraham should still be accepted. And the later context of Romans 14 explains more. The 'weak in faith' were those who tried to obey Jewish food laws (:2); and some had been made weak in faith by the insensitive attitudes of others in the church (:21). But for whatever reason, the weak were to be received- in contrast to the attitudes of those who assume that 'fellowship' must be based upon being able to jump certain doctrinal or practical bars. Abraham was weak- but he was strong in that he believed in the work of the Spirit in fulfilment of God's promises to him. This is the point- that the strong are not of themselves strong, they too are weak, but they believe in God's strength. And we are thereby "strong" (Rom. 15:1). His bearing of our weakness on the cross is to be reflected in how we treat the weak; and how we treat them is therefore of critical importance. And that is why our lives are full of interactions with the weak, so that we can reflect to them how the Lord carried us. We note that again in 1 Cor. 8:11, the weak are those who are legalistic- and yet they are the very ones who consider themselves strong by their legalism. 

Welcome him- The reason is because both God and the Lord Jesus have received or welcomed him (14:3; 15:7). The 'receiving' in view was presumably towards some who wanted to be in the church but who had been denied. The argument is similar to what had to be used with Peter- God had received the Gentiles, so Peter was to likewise. So perhaps it was the Jewish element who were unwilling to accept Gentiles in Rome. And this must be a principle for us too. We are not to be out of step with the Lord's acceptance of folks. It simply cannot be right to reason that 'They may well be good brethren in Christ, but we can't accept them because... '. 

But not so as to just quarrel with him over opinions- Of course, the Jewish legalists would have argued back as many do today: 'These are not matters of opinion, they are fundamental issues, God is a holy God... etc.'. The church was not to be a place of quarrelling. People were to be accepted with the positions they held without seeking to endlessly argue with them- that is surely the idea. And this is how Paul treats the 'weak'. He has more to say about the strong tolerating the weak, than he does about the weak actually changing position. That is notable throughout Romans 14 and 15. The idea is that the church should not be a place of debate but of upbuilding and acceptance of each other where we are.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:2'>Rom 14:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>One man has faith to eat all things-&nbsp;</em>The faith was surely faith in Christ's cleansing work by which He had ended the Mosaic law and all conception of clean and unclean food.</p><p><em>But he that is weak eats herbs</em>- Vegetarianism was associated with hyper legalistic Judaism, whereby every kind of meat was feared to be not completely bloodless or&nbsp;<em>kosher</em>. But those who had this position were "weak". Yet they were not to be argued with but accepted. This is not to say that Paul has no argument about this issue, for he clearly does elsewhere, as did the Lord Himself. But the point was that endless argument of a casuistic nature was not the way to resolve the issue. And again we have a valuable principle there. Presumably Paul does not engage with the Judaistic argument in the same way as he did in Galatians because he has already argued that justification is by grace and not the works of the law, and perhaps that point was accepted in general terms- whereas in Galatia it was not. The 'weakness' is defined in :1 as being weak "in faith". Those who still kept the Mosaic food laws were weak in faith in the work of the Lord Jesus, indeed they did not fully understand its nature and dimensions. But they are still described as being in the faith and worthy of acceptance by us because "God has accepted him" (:3). Deficits in faith and understanding do not therefore of themselves preclude God's acceptance of a man. We are also hereby given a window onto understanding what Paul means in Rom. 15:1 "we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves". Our 'strength' is, paradoxically, our faith in the work of the Lord Jesus. So many have given in to the temptation "to please ourselves" by cutting off those who have deficits in their faith and understanding of the Lord's work. This is not at all 'defence of the faith' nor 'love for the truth'; but rather basic selfishness and a refusal to bear the infirmities of those "weak" in understanding. We were weak, and the Lord carried our infirmities and weakness on the cross. Our response is to bear with those who are "weak" compared to our "strength" in understanding. And yet tolerance of the intolerant, patience towards the impatient... is a profound test of our 'strength', and many fail it.
The whole matter is given another nuance when we consider the implications of Rom. 14:23 in this context: "But he that doubts is condemned if he eats, because he eats not from faith. And whatever is not of faith is sin". Yet we read in :1-3 that those who are weak in faith should be accepted and are accepted by God. But the person of :23 is "condemned" because he "doubts". I suggest the idea is that if a person 'has faith' although based on misunderstanding, that is acceptable with God; but the person who has no faith, and acts on the basis of secular thinking, is to be condemned. Clearly God sees degrees of faith, and is prepared to accept even misguided faith. But He condemns those who are "not of faith". Another take is to see the word play in the Greek behind "he that doubts [dia-krino] is damned [kata-krino] if he eat". The krino suffix is the word for judgment / condemnation, almost suggesting [and perhaps we could paraphrase as] 'he who damns is damned'. The idea may be that he who condemns another for their position will be condemned. Acceptance of the weak [in our opinion] is therefore critical; because we must reflect to others the Lord's tolerance of us and His bearing of our weakness on the cross. The "weak" are weak in that they are vulnerable. They are weak in their faith in the Lord's work, because they think that works are still necessary. But if you fail to fully accept the total work of the Lord Jesus for you, then you are liable to condemn others.  And so you are vulnerable to condemnation.  This is why in :3 he warns the weak "who abstains [from eating]" not to "pass judgment on the one who eats". God accepts the weak as they are (:3); they are not told specifically to change, but warned that they must not judge those who do not share their positions, and to accept they broke the Jewish food laws as service 'as to the Lord' (:6). But the focus in this passage is largely upon the strong tolerating the weak, and understanding their vulnerabilities. Strength is shown in bearing with the weak (Rom. 15:1); strength is in tolerance of  others and seeking to help them towards the Kingdom. Intolerance, therefore, is not strength but weakness. The strength of the Lord Jesus on the cross was in that He bore our weaknesses, our 'not getting it'. He was crucified in or because of weakness, our weakness, and we also are weak "in Him". Our weakness is dealt with by His strength. 
The weak refused to come out of their cultural enclave [of following Jewish food laws and Sabbath keeping] because they failed to realize the dimensions of the Lord's work. But they were to be accepted, as God accepted them. We have a window here into the breadth of God's acceptance of men. Here for all time we see that 'conservative' and 'traditional' are not therefore always by default somehow closer to God. Those positions can often mean being further from Him and His Son. So many who present themselves as 'strong brethren' zealous for 'defending the faith' are not strong at all; they are the weak. The essence is to live the Kingdom life now, and then we will not be eating and drinking (:17).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:3'>Rom 14:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has accepted him</em>- Those with a more Biblically correct position are tempted to "despise" those who 'don't get it'. But all such spiritual elitism is wrong. Paul uses the same word used about how the Pharisee despised the publican (<em><a href='B:490 18:9'>Luk 18:9</a></em>)- to demonstrate that such spiritual superiority was in fact a form of the very Pharisaism which they were despising. The legalists were likewise inclined to judge their brothers who ate anything- using the weight of the Mosaic law to condemn. Paul alludes to both groups in :10, where he uses the same Greek words in appealing for brethren not to "judge" and "set at nothing" (s:w. "despise") their brethren- because they all stood before the Lord's judgment seat as sinners.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who are you to judge the servant of another?</em>- In :3, a distinction is made between the liberals who "despise" others, and the legalists who "judge" others. The reference here in :4 to not judging may therefore refer specifically to the legalists; or Paul's point may be that effectively, the liberals too were judging their brethren. The idea is that even if we consider the Biblical evidence judges another individual negatively,&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are not to pass that judgment. That is not for us to do. This is a subtle but important difference. The Bible may indeed condemn a particular behaviour, but it is not for us to condemn the individual who does it.</p><p><em>To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he shall be made to stand up. For the Lord has power to make him stand-&nbsp;</em>We are all slaves; not the Master. Likewise we are all guests at the Lord's table who should by rights never be there; it is not for us to tell others to leave that table of grace. The 'falling' in view in Romans is stumbling over the rock of Christ and 'falling' into condemnation (<em><a href='B:520 11:11'>Rom 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>). But Paul believes that God is able to make those who fall stand up, through imputing righteousness to them. For this has been his earlier argument in Romans. It is not for us, therefore, to judge those who fall. For God is seeking to make them stand up, and as the merciful Master, He may well count them as having stood up anyway, despite their fallen state. It is not therefore for us to judge those who fall. It may be that Paul's implication is that God is more likely to uphold His failing servant than we would be; therefore, let's not condemn our brother, because God is more generous-spirited than we are in His judgment.</p><p>The first century society was built around the concept of&nbsp;<em>oikonomia</em>, household fellowship. The head of the house was the leader, and all the extended family and slaves had to follow his religion and be obedient to him. For slaves, this was on pain of death. However, the call of Christ was to&nbsp;<em>individuals</em>; in conscious allusion to the&nbsp;<em>oikonomia</em>&nbsp;concept, Paul speaks of how we are the “household-servants” of Christ- not a human master (<em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em> RVmg:). Individual conversion to a religion was unheard of at the time. Indeed, religion was something for the wealthy to play with, as a hobby.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:5'>Rom 14:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>One man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike</em>- "Esteems" is the same word used in :1 about not having quarrels over opinions, or how one esteems / judges things. The matter was to be left within the mind of each person and not endlessly quarrelled over. Yet Paul is quite clear in Colossians 2 and elsewhere that the position that all days are the same is the right one. The Sabbath and all holy days have been ended by the Lord's work. But clearly he is willing for believers to remain of a different mind; the important thing being not to argue and have discord.</p><p><em>Let each man be fully assured in his own mind-&nbsp;</em>Paul has argued using the same word that Abraham was "fully assured" of salvation by faith through grace, and not by works (<em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>). This is only one of several allusions to Abraham in this section. But even if a believer cannot get to Abraham's level and still seriously misunderstands- they are to be accepted. This has serious challenges for those who demand a certain level of faith, understanding and practice before extending Christian fellowship.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:6'>Rom 14:6</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>He that regards the day, regards it to the Lord-&nbsp;</em>"Regards" really means to regard highly. Paul didn’t agree that some days were to be more highly regarded than others. But he advises that we respect those who have this wrong view, and consider that they are performing their mistaken service as "to the Lord". This is just how he has reasoned in chapter 13 about respecting local magistrates- service and obedience was to be performed to them 'as unto the Lord', just as slaves were to serve their earthly masters 'as unto the Lord'.</p><p>There is no lack of evidence in the NT that the Lord’s sacrifice precluded the need to do these things. And yet Paul and the Council of Jerusalem made concessions to the Jewish brethren who couldn’t bring themselves to accept the Truth in these areas, in the hope that continued practice of these things within the context of the Christian community would make them see for themselves that they were inappropriate. Paul says that Sabbath keeping is a matter of personal conscience (<em><a href='B:520 14:1-10'>Rom 14:1-10</a></em>), even though elsewhere he argues so forcibly that to do this is to return to the weak and beggarly elements. Here, as with the demons issue, there was a clear concession to some degree of human non-acceptance of Divine truth and the implications arising from it. It seems that although the Law was done away by the cross, by the time of <em><a href='B:540 3:7'>2Co 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:11'>2Co 3:11</a></em> it could still be spoken of as “that which is being done away” (RVmg:). There was a changeover period allowed, rather than a bald insistence that acceptance of Christ and the meaning of His death must mean that the old Jewish ways were dropped instantly.</p><p><em>And he that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks</em>- Paul assumes that believers of whatever persuasion will thank God before meals; and this should remain one of our good traditions.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:7'>Rom 14:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself-&nbsp;</em>Note that it is not living for&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;which is the immediate point; but living and dying to&nbsp;<em>Jesus</em>&nbsp;(:8). "None of us" is a very generous statement by Paul; he assumes that each of his readership are living and dying not to themselves but to Christ (:8). His positivity is expressed whilst at the very same time facing their immaturity and misunderstandings head on.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em><em>&nbsp;For whether we live, we live to the Lord. Or whether we die, we die to the Lord. Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's-&nbsp;</em>This is exactly the language of Romans 6 concerning baptism. The death of self and living now unto the Lord Jesus is the exact terminology used. Again Paul is positively assuming that the status taken on at baptism is being lived out in practice. He speaks of this level of total dedication to the Lord as a reason why we should not therefore be involved in judging our brethren, or getting involved in endless doctrinal disputes with them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:9'>Rom 14:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living-&nbsp;</em>There are some passages which appear to teach misread that we go on living after death. It has been observed that <em><a href='B:520 14:8-9'>Rom 14:8-9</a></em> implies that Jesus is our Lord after death as well as in life: “For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living”. We are the Lord’s after death, in the same way as Abraham lives unto Him (<em><a href='B:490 20:38'>Luk 20:38</a></em>). We are still with Him. He doesn’t forget us when we die, just as I will remember my mother till the day of my death, regardless of when she dies. But if the Lord doesn’t come, I will die, and my memory, my love, my fondness, will perish (for a small moment). But God doesn’t die, His memory doesn’t fade and distort as ours does; images of us don’t come in and out of His mind with greater intensity and insistence at some times than at others; He remembers us constantly and will remember us after our death, right up until when the Lord comes. Because of this, He is the God of Abraham; Abraham is alive in the mind of God, He remembers his faith and his offering of Isaac, just as much as He was aware of it in Abraham’s lifetime. The works of the dead follow them, in the sense that once they finish their labours their works are still in the memory of the Father (<em><a href='B:730 14:13'>Rev 14:13</a></em>); for what father would not remember his dead child’s ways and deeds? This is why <em><a href='B:520 14:8-9'>Rom 14:8-9</a></em> says that Jesus is our Lord after death just as much as He was and is during our lifetimes. Why? Because we are “the Lord’s”, because we were “added to the Lord” through baptism (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:14'>Act 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:24'>Act 11:24</a></em>), because we are true brothers-in-Christ. From God’s perspective, the dead believers are cheering us on as we run the race to the end; He remembers them as they were, and knows how they would behave if they were alive today, looking down upon us as we run the race (<em><a href='B:650 12:1'>Heb 12:1</a></em>). Or in another figure, the blood of the dead believers cries out from under the altar, demanding vengeance on this world: on the Catholic, Protestant, Babylonian, Roman, Nazi, Soviet systems that slew them for their faith (<em><a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a></em>). To God, their blood is a voice, just as real as the voice of Abel, which cried out (in a figure) for judgment against Cain (<em><a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a></em>). After their death, those who had already died are spoken of as being given “white robes” and being told to rest a bit longer (<em><a href='B:730 6:11'>Rev 6:11</a></em>).</p><p>The fact Jesus is Lord has vital practical import for us. In <em><a href='B:520 14:7-9'>Rom 14:7-9</a></em>, Paul speaks of the need not to live unto ourselves, but to rather live in a way which is sensitive to the conscience and needs of others. Why? “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living". Because He is our Lord we therefore don’t live for ourselves, but for Christ our Lord and all those in Him. When Paul in 1 Timothy 6 exalts that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, dwelling in light which no man can approach unto, this isn’t just some literary flourish. It is embedded within a context of telling the believers to quit materialism, indeed to flee from its snare.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:10'>Rom 14:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>But you, why do you judge your brother?-&nbsp;</em>The "you" refers to those legalists who judged the liberals. Those who despised or 'set at nothing' others are surely the liberals despising the conservatives. Hence "You again..." refers to a different group.</p><p><em>Or you again, why do you set at nothing your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God-&nbsp;</em>We read in <em><a href='B:300 42:2'>Jer 42:2</a></em> of a supplication being “accepted”, or ‘to fall down before’ (RVmg:). To fall down before the Lord Jesus is to be accepted of Him. Paul speaks of us all&nbsp;<em>standing</em>&nbsp;before the judgment seat of Christ after first of all casting ourselves down; and this in the context of saying that God is able to make the weak brother<em>&nbsp;stand</em>&nbsp;in His sight (<em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em> cp. 10,11). We will all be in the position of the weak brother. Don't "set at nought" your brother- because the judgment seat of Christ is coming for you too (<em><a href='B:520 14:10'>Rom 14:10</a></em>). We will&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>be "set at nought" then; that's the implication. We will all have to be made stand by God’s grace. We will&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>be made to stand, i:e. be accepted (<em><a href='B:560 6:11-13'>Eph 6:11-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:12'>Col 4:12</a></em>)- or at least, Paul is saying, that's how you should look at your brethren, as if they too will be accepted. For if we have no right to condemn our brethren; we must surely assume they will be accepted. In&nbsp;passing, note how Paul warns in&nbsp;this context that we can cause our brother to fall down or stumble (<em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em>). Some at the last day will not be ‘stood up’, they will remain prostrate and then slink away. And why? Because they will have been made to fall by their brethren. Our faith and our community of believers is fragile, more fragile than we may think. In all the pressures of these last days it is so terribly easy to cause each other to stumble, to fall, with the ultimate consequence that they will not be stood up at the judgment. This is the evil of causing offence, stumbling, making another to fall down.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:11'>Rom 14:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As it is written-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:290 45:23'>Isa 45:23</a></em> "Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess" is quoted by Paul in <em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em> as being specifically concerning our position at the judgment seat. It is therefore fitting to read <em><a href='B:290 45:24-25'>Isa 45:24-25</a></em> as being concerning our thoughts then: "Surely, shall one say, in the Lord (Jesus) have I righteousness and strength... and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed (cp. our earlier reconstruction of the rejected initially arguing with the Lord in anger, and then slinking away in shame). In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory". In God’s presence (judgment language: <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:9'>2Th 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>) no flesh will glory, but will glory in the Lord (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>). The RV makes all this even more personal: "Only in the Lord, shall one say unto me, have I righteousness and strength" (<em><a href='B:290 45:24'>Isa 45:24</a></em> RV). The words of grateful realization will be directed specifically by us to the Lord Himself.</p><p><em>As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess&nbsp;to God-&nbsp;</em>To God (in Christ). This is parallel to "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>). "Account" is the Greek '<em>logos</em>'- we will '<em>logos</em>' ourselves in the sense that we will verbally confess ("every tongue") the innermost essence of our spiritual lives. "Confess",&nbsp;<em>exomo-logeo&nbsp;</em>is related to&nbsp;<em>logos,&nbsp;</em>"account". This will lead us to confess with our tongue that Christ is really our Lord (<em><a href='B:570 2:11'>Phi 2:11</a></em>). Confessing our sinfulness will lead us to show our appreciation of His Lordship. That which has been spoken or thought in darkness will then be heard in the light- in that day "there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed" (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>). He will confess our righteous acts, and we will confess our sins (<em><a href='B:290 45:23-25'>Isa 45:23-25</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:10'>Phi 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:11'>Rom 14:11</a></em>). For the wicked, it will be the opposite. They confess their righteous acts, He tells them their sins. And in this way the good and bad deeds of all the responsible will come to the light.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:12'>Rom 14:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God-&nbsp;</em>The connection between <em><a href='B:520 14:12'>Rom 14:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em> "every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account of it in the day of judgment" suggests that Paul recognized that we all speak idle words which we will have to give account of at judgment. Therefore, because of our rampant tongue, we will stand in deep need of grace. So therefore, Paul says, you’d&nbsp;better be soft on your brother now, in this life.</p><p>“Every knee shall bow to me... every tongue shall confess... so then every one&nbsp;<em>of us</em>&nbsp;shall give account" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>) is an example of where 'all men', 'every man' means 'every one of us the responsible'. “The dead” will be judged (<em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>)- not everyone who ever died, but the dead who, God counts 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. 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.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide-&nbsp;</em>There is to be one thing we judge or decide- that we never cause another to stumble.</p><p><em>Never to put a stumbling block-&nbsp;</em>The "stumblingblock" was used earlier in Romans with regard to the Lord Jesus and His grace being a stone of stumbling for the Jews (<em><a href='B:520 9:32-33'>Rom 9:32-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a></em>). He could be made a stumblingblock by Gentile believers insisting that Jewish believers disobey the Mosaic law by eating thinks like pork; if the Jews did so with a bad conscience, they might end up turning away from Him completely The word "stumblingblock" is used in exactly this context in :20,21 and <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>. So sensitivity is required in order to not make another stumble. It is not enough to insist that we are right from God’s word, and therefore what we demand must be accepted by others. Their weakness of understanding and therefore of conscience must still be taken into account. Pure Biblicism has no place for this kind of thinking, and results in the utter belligerence and insensitivity which has led so many to stumble from the pathway to God’s Kingdom.</p><p><em>Or hindrance in the way of a brother-&nbsp;</em>"Hindrance" is&nbsp;<em>skandalon</em>&nbsp;and strictly refers to the twig on a trap, which once triggered opens up the trap into which the animal falls. The Lord is crystal clear in His teaching that those who create such triggers for others shall be cast out at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:1'>Luk 17:1</a></em>). Hence Paul urges that we must soberly decide / judge&nbsp;<em>never</em>&nbsp;to do this to another believer. This needs to be taken far more seriously by those who insist on rejecting others from their communities because of positions on divorce or fellowship. Paul concludes by soberly warning avoidance of those who cause such&nbsp;<em>skandalon</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>). Walking in the light, loving our brother, means that we have no reason of causing&nbsp;<em>skandalon</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:690 2:10'>1Jn 2:10</a></em>). Love is not causing another to stumble.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I know, and I am persuaded by the Lord Jesus-&nbsp;</em>Paul really did meditate on every word of his Lord. Thus he says he was&nbsp;<em>persuaded</em>&nbsp;by the Lord Jesus that all foods were clean- this is how he took the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em>. Those words&nbsp;<em>lived</em>&nbsp;to Paul, they were as the personal persuasion of his Lord, as if Christ was talking to him personally through the Gospel records.</p><p><em>That nothing is unclean of itself</em>- This is another window onto the fact that essentially, sin is committed within the mind. It is the mental attitudes which go along with eating or not eating which are the key issues before God. Because there is nothing unclean of itself.</p><p><em>Save that to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean-&nbsp;</em>Paul's approach could have been: 'The truth is that "nothing is unclean". So those who still think in terms of clean and unclean are wrong. It's their problem- they should accept the truth about this matter and get over it. By believing some things are still unclean they are denying the power of the Lord's sacrifice, how awful…'. But he doesn't. He asks us to accept that these believers really think some things are unclean and so for them, if they eat them, they would be sinning in their conscience. The bald black and white, truth / error scenario doesn't help here; the sensitive Christian must go beyond this in sensitivity to those who are still immature, rather than hitting them with a choice as to whether to submit to Divine truth or not. We can be sure that the Father likewise practices this policy with us all over many areas where we also misunderstand and are genuinely miseducated. It is by our response to others like that as we encounter them in life that we work out our own final standing before Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:15'>Rom 14:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if your brother is grieved by what you eat-&nbsp;</em>The grief or distress would be in their conscience, being encouraged to do something which they believe is sinful. Paul only uses the same word in Romans to describe his distress for Israel and those still under the Law (<em><a href='B:520 9:2'>Rom 9:2</a></em>). This is the grief we should have. We the mature should therefore feel grief for the legalists; and not cause them grief in their conscience.</p><p><em>You walk no longer in love-&nbsp;</em>Blind, bald insistence upon true principle in this case can lead others to stumble; and this nets our condemnation, not our commendation for understanding the theoretical truth about something. The way of love involves sensitivity to others. Recall that Paul has said that there should not be argument about these matters, not receiving these weaker ones to endless disputations (:1). Rather their weaker position must be accepted and lived with in sensitivity. This is a far ranging principle which so many Protestant groups obsessed with 'truth' have seriously failed to grasp.</p><p><em>By what you eat, do not destroy-&nbsp;</em>The emphasis is upon "you". Our example is more powerful than we can imagine. The 'destruction' refers to condemnation at the last day; the Greek word is used in this way elsewhere (<em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a></em> with reference to the new covenant destroying the old bottles of the legalists; <em><a href='B:470 10:28'>Mat 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:39'>Mat 10:39</a></em>). So will God condemn a person for eating pork when they see you eat it, just because it is sinful in their conscience? Even when God sees that there is nothing unclean of itself? Maybe. Perhaps this is the degree to which God is sensitive to human conscience. But we must give due weight to the fact that whether our conscience commends or condemns us, it is not by our conscience that we shall be justified at the last day (<em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>). I would rather think that if a person e.g. eats pork when they feel it is a sin, they will thereby be emboldened to consciously sin in other areas too, and their spiritual lives will fast tumble downhill until they lose faith completely.</p><p><em>The one for whom Christ died-&nbsp;</em>The tragedy of making another stumble is that Christ died for their salvation; you have made His death in vain for them. This is the message of the new wine, Christ's blood, being put into old wineskins; they are destroyed, and the new wine is poured out on the ground wasted. To make Christ's death to be in vain is serious, and can be the basis of our condemnation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:16'>Rom 14:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil-&nbsp;</em>'Spoken of as evil' is literally 'blasphemed'. The Greek word can be used of bad speaking against a person and not only against God. Paul uses the same word in this very context in <em><a href='B:530 10:30'>1Co 10:30</a></em>: "If I eat my food with thankfulness, why is evil spoken of me, for that for which I give thanks?". By allowing continual argument about the food issue, persons and things such as pork meat started to be spoken evil of. This is exactly why Paul wisely commands that those who have these 'weak' positions should be accepted but not argued with (:1).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the kingdom of God is not about what we eat and drink-&nbsp;</em>This verse doesn't speak only of the fact that in the future Kingdom of God on earth, we shall not be debating what we eat- and so we shouldn't be now. <em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em> uses the same Greek words to explain that God through the Holy Spirit fills us with "joy and peace". These are internal mental attributes; and we are given them by God through the Spirit / mind which is given to us, as explained in chapter 8. <em><a href='B:550 5:22'>Gal 5:22</a></em> likewise says that the Spirit within us brings forth the fruit of joy and peace. "The Kingdom of God" was the core message of the Lord Jesus, and His teachings and parables about it refer mainly to life lived under the Kingship of God right now. Within that spirit of thinking and living, we do not argue about issues like food. There is a clear connection with the theological section of Romans- the life of the Spirit is all about righteousness (<em><a href='B:520 8:10'>Rom 8:10</a></em>)- the same terms used in this verse. The practical import of that is that we are not going to be mentally bogged down in endless disputes about legal issues. We are therefore not to keep arguing about them (:1), but just accept the weak and immature as they are, by grace.</p><p><em>But about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit-&nbsp;</em>All the law, every possible type of legislation, is comprehended in the one simple law of loving our neighbour (<em><a href='B:520 13:9'>Rom 13:9</a></em>). We aren’t free to do, dress or speak just as we like; the law of love binds heavy upon us. The things of God’s Kingdom don’t revolve so much around laws (e.g. about what we should eat and drink) but around “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (<em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). It is attitudes which are important rather than specific acts of obedience.</p><p>In <em><a href='B:20 33:8'>Exo 33:8</a></em> Moses asks to see God’s glory, and in reply he is told God will proclaim His Name before him, which is done in <em><a href='B:20 34:5-7'>Exo 34:5-7</a></em> by the declaration of God’s righteous attributes. Solomon building a temple "For the name of the Lord, and an house for His Kingdom" (<em><a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a></em>) suggests that God’s Kingdom is another manifestation of His Name, because it will be filled with His attributes. This helps us understand <em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>: "The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink... but righteousness... joy", i:e. the characteristics of God’s Name.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:18'>Rom 14:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he that herein serves Christ is wellpleasing to God</em>- The language is that of sacrifice, which is how God was 'served'; and "wellpleasing" is the word for 'acceptable', used about the acceptability of sacrifice. By patiently accepting the weakness and immaturity of others, and living the Spirit life of joy and peace which is not bogged down in endless arguments over interpretation, we are in fact serving the Lord Jesus; and that service is a sacrifice acceptable to God.</p><p><em>And approved of by men</em>- Taking the higher path of not conflicting over these matters was in any case the way to acceptability with men. Not that this is of itself what we should be seeking; but Paul is addressing the unspoken issue of everyone wanting to be seen by men to be doing the right thing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then let us follow after things which make for peace</em>- The endless disputations about law do not make for peace, neither with God which is how Paul often uses the idea of peace nor with men. Again we note that Paul came down on one side of the argument- for he writes that there is nothing unclean in itself. But this point was not to be pushed and made the source of endless argument. For peace between believers is the fruit and intention of the Spirit. And again there is a connection back to the more theoretical section of Romans, where Paul uses the same word in saying that Israel who 'followed after' legalistic righteousness did not attain it (<em><a href='B:520 9:30-31'>Rom 9:30-31</a></em>).</p><p><em><a href='B:490 14:32'>Luk 14:32</a></em> records the parable of the man with a small army going to meet the General with a far larger army- and then wisely desiring "conditions (lit. 'things') of peace". The man is clearly us, and the General coming with His hosts is evidently the Lord Jesus; we are to come to peace with Him before the final meeting of God and man in judgment. But this Greek phrase 'things of peace' recurs in <em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>, where Paul speaks of making every effort to live at peace&nbsp;<em>with our brethren</em>, e.g. being sensitive to their scruples about food. Paul clearly understood that our peace with God cannot be unrelated to our peace with our brethren. To make peace with God and His Son as required in <em><a href='B:490 14:32'>Luk 14:32</a></em> must have some practical issue- and practically, it means living at peace with the rest of God’s children.</p><p><em>And things whereby we may edify one another</em>- Paul repeats this in <em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>: "Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to encourage him". "Encourage" is s:w. "edify" or 'build up'. We take our place within the congregation thinking how we can build up the one next to us. And that requires wisdom; we have to choose our issues, losing a few battles to win a war. And arguing over the food issues was not going to build anyone up. Let that one go, just as the Lord let go the issue of folks believing in demons; focus instead on something positive which will really improve or build up our neighbour within the church. This approach of course is at variance with the mindset which insists that because truth has been perceived over one issue, we must keep on and on about that issue, until we either drive our brother out of the church or we split the community.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:20'>Rom 14:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do not overthrow the work of God for the mere sake of food-&nbsp;</em>Paul has shown in :15 that we can destroy a brother by insisting on our particular point, no matter how correct we may be see note there. The "work of God" refers to His work to save that individual whom we can cause to stumble. Our own stubbornness and belligerence regarding our own correctness of understanding can actually be working against God’s work. And because He allows us freewill, He permits us the power to both stumble and build up our brother. Much depends on us. "The work of God" is specifically faith in the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:29'>Joh 6:29</a></em>). We can destroy another's faith in Jesus because of an argument about food. This is how fragile and delicate is the faith of others. And yet we can too easily ride roughshod over the faith of others by our insistence on our correct interpretations. Paul earlier in Romans has argued that God saves without works of men (<em><a href='B:520 4:2'>Rom 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:11'>Rom 9:11</a></em>). Salvation is His work... and yet we can disallow His work for others by making them stumble. We must take seriously our potential to do this. In no way can we therefore go along with any policy or position which leads to the stumbling of others. And this may have radical implications for us in our social life within the believing community, just as it did for the likes of Paul and Peter in the first century church. Our relationship with the Lord God is personal. Each of us is "the work of God”, and we should therefore respect each other's spiritual individuality, even if it is based on misunderstandings such as misinterpretation of Old Testament passages about food.</p><p><em>All things indeed are clean-&nbsp;</em>Again Paul clearly comes down on one side of the food argument- no food is unclean of itself. And yet his view is that the weak should be admitted to the church but there is to be no disputing about their wrong understandings (:1).</p><p><em>However it is evil for that man who makes another stumble by what he eats</em>- Paul here redefines clean and unclean food in a new covenant context. Eating unclean food is made equal to doing something which makes your legalistic brother stumble. This is what defiles and places us outside God’s realm of holiness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>It is good not to eat meat nor drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble</em>- The 'good' thing here is that spoken of in :16: "So do not let what you regard as good...". What is good or clean meat is to not do anything that causes your brother to stumble. "Or do anything..." takes this whole argument far beyond the immediate context of whether we can eat pork or only&nbsp;<em>kosher</em>&nbsp;chicken. The principles reach to our day. The legalists were convinced that the Bible taught a difference between clean and unclean food- for "the Bible tells me so". But the more mature could see that the Lord's words, and the implications of the Lord's sacrifice, meant that these laws should no longer be kept. Because 'the Bible told them so'. And they were in fact right, as Paul labours by twice stating that there is nothing unclean in itself. But they only won on points. The far wider issue was not causing another to stumble by keeping on about the fact, and accepting weaker brethren to only have "doubtful disputations" with them (:1). The principles are so clearly relevant to all the struggles over interpretation and practice which have riddled all the various denominations of Christendom.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:22'>Rom 14:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The faith which you have</em>- Eating previously unclean food was possible by faith in the Lord Jesus and His work. It would seem from how he writes that Paul is especially addressing the more mature element in the church; for in :1 he tells them to accept the weak into the church.</p><p><em>Keep between yourself and God</em>- Our faith and understanding is in a sense very intimate, "before God" (Gk:), in His presence. By endlessly engaging others in the "doubtful disputations" of :1, that faith was no longer private, but was being forced upon others. The idea seems to be that one may eat privately what they wish, but should not eat or drink before a weaker believer in a way which makes him stumble (:21).</p><p><em>Happy is he that has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves-&nbsp;</em>This is the blessedness of a good conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:23'>Rom 14:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:580 2:18'>Col 2:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>But he that doubts-&nbsp;</em>Romans 14, 15 have many allusions back to the earlier, 'doctrinal' part of Romans. Between them, those allusions teach that we&nbsp;<em>are&nbsp;</em>to be as Abraham; and yet we will be accepted if we can't rise up to his standard. <em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em> exhorts us to "receive the&nbsp;<em>weak in faith"-&nbsp;</em>when we have been told that Abraham was&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>weak in faith (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>) and we should seek to be like him. But we are to receive those who are in his seed by baptism, but don't make it to his level of personal faith. <em><a href='B:520 14:5'>Rom 14:5</a></em> bids us be&nbsp;<em>fully persuaded-&nbsp;</em>as Abraham was "fully persuaded" (<em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>). Yet, <em><a href='B:520 14:23'>Rom 14:23</a></em> he who&nbsp;<em>doubts</em>&nbsp;is damned- and Abraham didn’t&nbsp;<em>stagger&nbsp;</em>s:w. <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>). Thus ultimately, he must be our example, even if some in the ecclesia will take time to rise up to his standard, and unlike him are "weak in faith".</p><p><em>Is condemned if he eats, because he eats not from faith</em>- This is the opposite case of those who can happily eat whatever on the basis of their faith in the Lord's work; which is how "faith" is used in Romans.  Yet we read in :1-3 that those who are weak in faith should be accepted and are accepted by God. But the person of :23 is "condemned" because he "doubts". I suggest the idea is that if a person 'has faith' although based on misunderstanding, that is acceptable with God; but the person who has no faith, and acts on the basis of secular thinking, is to be condemned. Clearly God sees degrees of faith, and is prepared to accept even misguided faith. But He condemns those who are "not of faith". Another take is to see the word play in the Greek behind "he that doubts [dia-krino] is damned [kata-krino] if he eat". The krino suffix is the word for judgment / condemnation. The idea may be that he who condemns another for their position will be condemned. Acceptance of the weak [in our opinion] is therefore critical; because we must reflect to others the Lord's tolerance of us and His bearing of our weaknesson the cross. </p><p><em>And whatever is not of faith is sin</em>- "Of faith" is a phrase used earlier by Paul in Romans; and I have argued that the practical section of the letter is full of reference to the theological foundations given in the opening section. "The just shall live by s:w. "of" faith" (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>). If we are not living in justification in Christ, free from the Law, then we are in sin. This is the tough dualism Paul presents in the opening chapters of Romans. If they ate unclean food whilst still thinking they were thereby justified by the Law, then they were in sin- for Paul has proved that legalistic obedience to Law leaves us in sin, and only faith in Christ can get us into a status outside of "sin". The Jews could only be justified by or 'of' faith (<em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>). Rightness before God is only "of faith" (<em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:30'>Rom 9:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:32'>Rom 9:32</a></em>). Any other way leaves us "in sin". And yet we are left with a significant logical problem: If indeed justification and salvation are&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;"of faith" in Christ and not by keeping Mosaic commandments, then why does Paul as it were allow this whole question of obeying Jewish laws to be as it were a matter of personal conscience? I can only conclude that he accepts that God’s grace in Christ is such that even those who did not fully 'get it' would still be saved. And that is grace indeed. This also answers the question as to what was to become of the Jewish Christians amongst Paul's readership who didn’t fully accept his arguments. Were they thereby condemned? If they sought justification by obedience to Law, then yes- "he that doubts is condemned":&nbsp; But if they still hankered after obedience to Law and couldn't emotionally accept the full implications of that status- well Paul seems content to allow them some concession to that weakness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now we that are strong-&nbsp;</em>As noted at the end of chapter 14, Paul is writing specifically to those who knew the Law to be ended and who rightly felt free to eat anything.</p><p><em>Ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves</em>- In chapter 14, Paul has defined "the weak" as those who could not come to terms with grace and who persisted in misinterpreting Bible teaching about food laws. In effect, they were in denial of much of Paul's inspired reasoning earlier in Romans. But he has urged these "weak" be accepted in the church (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>), but not endlessly argued with. The more mature had "to bear" their weakness of understanding and behaviour. This is at variance to the pure Biblicist, truth vs. error scenario, where those who are Biblically in the right keep on attacking the weak and will not fellowship them. The Greek for "infirmities" is the word used about how Abraham was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;weak or infirm in faith (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>); and how the Law was "weak through the flesh". Those still under the Law simply did not have the faith of Abraham. And others had been made weak or infirm by the intolerance of those who understood better than them (<em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em> AV "is made weak"). But the strong were to accept them into the church (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>) and carry / bear them. And this is indeed how life is in any church; there are some who will need to be carried to the Kingdom. That is how it is. And it is the serious sin of those supposedly 'strong' to refuse to carry them.</p><p>The Lord Jesus didn’t sin Himself but He took upon Himself our sins- to the extent that He&nbsp;<em>felt</em>&nbsp;a sinner, even though He wasn’t. Our response to this utter and saving grace is to likewise take upon ourselves the infirmities and sins of our brethren. If one is offended, we burn too; if one is weak, we are weak; we bear the infirmities of the weak (<em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em>). But in the context of that passage, Paul is quoting from <em><a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a></em>, about how the Lord Jesus bore our sins on the cross. We live out the spirit of His cross, not in just bearing with our difficulties in isolation, but in feeling for our weak brethren:&nbsp;&nbsp;We should be able to say with Paul that we are indeed co-crucified with Him. For most of us, this co-crucifixion isn't in terms of literal pain or violent persecution for His sake. So in what terms, then, are His sufferings articulated in us? Surely, therefore, in our mental suffering with Him. Thus Paul can quote a prophecy of Christ's crucifixion and apply it to our sufferings as a result of bearing with our weak brethren (<em><a href='B:520 15:1-3'>Rom 15:1-3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to encourage him-&nbsp;</em>The ordinary people must take responsibility. Each of us should build up his neighbour- and ‘neighbour’ is usually to be understood in the NT as our neighbour within the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:560 4:25'>Eph 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:8'>Jas 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 4:12'>Jas 4:12</a></em>). In the context, encouraging or Gk. 'building up' is by bearing the weaknesses of the weak. According to <em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em> ff:, those weaknesses involve their misunderstanding of the Lord's sacrifice and <em><a href='B:520 15:3-4'>Rom 15:3-4</a></em> suggest that these weak brethren insulted the 'stronger'. Building up others, loving our neighbour, was to be by accepting their weaknesses of understanding and conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:3'>Rom 15:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For Christ also did not please himself, but as it is written: The reproaches of them that reproached You fell upon me-&nbsp;</em>We must receive one another, even as the Lord has received us (<em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>)- and this includes receiving him who is even weak in the faith (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>). We should be looking for every reason to receive and fellowship our brethren, rather than reasons not to. The essence of living this kind of life is the cross of Christ. Paul brings this out in <em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em> to <em><a href='B:520 15:3'>Rom 15:3</a></em>: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak…We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves:&nbsp; Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me”. The quotation is from a Psalm which refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet Paul applies this to us, in our bearing with the weaknesses of our brethren and seeking not to offend them. For this is the living out of the crucifixion life in ours. This is putting meaning into words, reality into the regular action of taking bread and wine in identity with that sacrifice. Sensitively bearing with our brethren, not doing anything that weakens or offends them, but rather building them up by our patience and tolerance of their scruples and limited perceptions. This is the cross, for us. The more we realize the height of the calling, the more even like our Lord we balk at what we are really being asked to do. It is so hard not to offend others and to commit ourselves to only building them up. As hard, in barest essence, as the cross of Calvary, on a day in April, on a Friday afternoon, about 1970 years ago.</p><p>The love of Christ in the cross is to have a continual inspiration upon us- endless love, countless moments of re-inspiration, are to come to us daily&nbsp;<em>because of the cross</em>. This is how central it is to daily life. The crucifixion prophecy "The reproaches of them that reproached You fell upon me" is quoted in <em><a href='B:520 15:3'>Rom 15:3</a></em> about Christ's crucifixion; but on this basis Paul appeals to&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;to please not ourselves, but to edify our neighbour; and thus the prophecies about Christ's sufferings for us were written for&nbsp;<em>our&nbsp;</em>learning and encouragement (<em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:4-5'>Rom 15:4-5</a></em>). This works out as being the case insofar as we are to see in His sufferings a direct, personal compulsion to&nbsp;<em>us</em>to respond in selfless service of others. The connection between Him there on that piece of wood and us today, struggling to live life in selfless service, is absolutely live, concrete and powerful:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:4'>Rom 15:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For whatever things were written previously were written for our education, that through patience and through the comfort of the scriptures we might have hope</em>- Paul has just quoted a prophecy of the Lord's sufferings; and he has drawn a bridge between Him there, and us today. His sufferings are ours. In the first century Roman context, our patience with legalists and their taunts is a form of sharing His experience on the cross. Those things were therefore written for us, as well as Him. And they are therefore for our "comfort". The&nbsp;<em>paraklesis</em>, "comfort", is literally a 'coming near'. He there in His time of dying comes near to us, in that all He suffered is in essence what we do in various ways.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:5'>Rom 15:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you</em>- Patience and comfort are internal attributes; and God is willing to give these things to us. They are if you like spiritual, relating to the spirit or mind; and God is eager to give us that spirit- His Spirit.</p><p><em>To be of the same mind one with another, according to Christ Jesus</em>- What God gives is His Holy Spirit, or as it is termed elsewhere, the mind or spirit of Christ. We are counted as Christ, His righteousness is imputed to us. But God seeks to make this how we actually are- by the transforming power of the Spirit within. Each believer is given the same mind of Christ- and so unity between believers is achieved on account of "Christ Jesus". And yet in chapter 14 we see Paul accepting that some of the believers were "weak" in their understanding of some aspects of the Lord's sacrifice. But he focuses on the fact that despite that, they are of the same spirit of Christ as those who understand better. Unity is not the same as uniformity, neither is it achieved by identity of belief or understanding, let alone common ascent to a document such as a statement of faith. The verb translated "be of the same mind" is that used in <em><a href='B:520 14:6'>Rom 14:6</a></em> about those who regard or mind the Sabbath as holy and those who do not. They could legitimately have a different mind to each other over the interpretation of Scripture for both sides considered they had God’s word behind their positions. But they were of the same mind with each other if they had the spirit of Christ- this was the essential unity, and not identity of Biblical interpretation. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:570 2:2'>Phi 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:5'>Phi 2:5</a></em>, where Paul appeals for believers to be of the same mind- and then defines that as being the mind of Christ. This is how we are of one mind- by having the same devotion to the mind or spirit of Christ and being open to receiving it. Paul has earlier used the word in describing how those who are justified by grace receive the gift of the Spirit which results in minding the things of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:520 8:5'>Rom 8:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:27'>Rom 8:27</a></em>). Our efforts to consciously be of one mind toward each other (<em><a href='B:520 12:16'>Rom 12:16</a></em> s:w:) are therefore an effort to allow the mind of Christ to be our rule and guide in all human relationships.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:6'>Rom 15:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ</em>- "With one accord" is a phrase often used of the early church, who were clearly made that way by their common receipt of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, despite their major differences. The Spirit of the Lord Jesus is to glorify His Father- and all those who have received that spirit will do so.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore receive one another-&nbsp;</em>This forms an&nbsp;<em>inclusio</em>, a kind of bookmark, concluding the section which began in <em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>. They were to receive one another on the basis that they each had the spirit / mind of Christ. The basis for receiving another is because God has received them (:3). And clearly enough, Paul understood the Father and Son to have received these 'weak' ones who had not fully accepted everything revealed about the Lord's work and sacrifice:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>Even as Christ also received you each one, to the glory of God-&nbsp;</em>This may be a warning against blanket positions on fellowship, whereby people are not treated as individuals but as blocks of persons. Each one of us was received by the Lord and so each one we encounter is to be received.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I say that Christ has been made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises given to the fathers</em>- Paul seeks to bring together Jew and Gentile in the church at Rome by reasoning that the Lord's death as a Jew and for Israel was the basis for Gentile salvation. He died in the first place for Israel, those under the law, to redeem God’s Israel (<em><a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a></em>). When was Christ made a servant "minister"? According to Philippians 2, in His death on the cross. "The truth of God" is a phrase Paul elsewhere uses in Romans for the Gospel which is the universal truth for all men, Jew and Gentile. It was by the Lord's death that the promises to the Jewish fathers which are the basis of the Gospel were "confirmed". He was the sacrifice previsioned in Genesis 15 which was God’s confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant. God’s covenant commitment to us is amazing. In Genesis 15, He made a one-sided commitment to Abraham. The idea of the dead animals in the ceremony was to teach that 'So may I be dismembered and die if I fail to keep my promise'. <em><a href='B:300 34:18'>Jer 34:18</a></em> speaks of how Israelites must die, because they passed between the pieces of the dead animal sacrifices in making a covenant. But in Genesis 15, it is none less than the God who cannot die who is offering to do this, subjecting Himself to this potential curse And He showed Himself for real in the death of His Son. That was His way of confirming the utter certainty of the promises to Abraham which are the basis of the new covenant which He has cut with us (<em><a href='B:520 15:8'>Rom 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:17'>Gal 3:17</a></em>). Usually both parties passed between the dead animals- but only Yahweh does. It was a one-sided covenant from God to man, exemplifying His one-way grace. The Lord died, in the way that He did, to get through to us how true this all is- that God Almighty cut a sober, unilateral covenant with us personally, to give us the Kingdom. We simply can't be passive to such grace, we have no option but to reach out with grace to others in care and concern- and we have a unique motivation in doing this, which this unbelieving world can never equal. From one viewpoint, the only way we can not be saved is to wilfully refuse to participate in this covenant. See on <em><a href='B:470 28:10'>Mat 28:10</a></em>.</p><br/><p>15:9&nbsp;<em>And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy-&nbsp;</em>It was because of the Lord's death and resurrection that the promises to Abraham were confirmed. He became thereby in the fullest sense the seed of Abraham who would inherit the earth for ever. And all who identify with Him and become "in Him" by faith and baptism are thereby assured of the salvation promised to Him and Abraham. This was the thought of <em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>: "To the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed. Not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all". The promise was made sure or confirmed (:8) in the Lord's death. And thus His death initially for Israel became the world's salvation.</p><p><em>As it is written: Therefore will I give praise to You among the Gentiles, and sing to Your Name</em>- The quotation from <em><a href='B:230 18:49'>Psa 18:49</a></em> is of David wanting to praise God among the Gentiles. Paul reads this as meaning that David looked forward to a day when the Gentiles would praise God, and he would be there amongst them doing the same.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:9'>Rom 15:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy-&nbsp;</em>It was because of the Lord's death and resurrection that the promises to Abraham were confirmed. He became thereby in the fullest sense the seed of Abraham who would inherit the earth for ever. And all who identify with Him and become "in Him" by faith and baptism are thereby assured of the salvation promised to Him and Abraham. This was the thought of <em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>: "To the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed. Not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all". The promise was made sure or confirmed (:8) in the Lord's death. And thus His death initially for Israel became the world's salvation.</p><p><em>As it is written: Therefore will I give praise to You among the Gentiles, and sing to Your Name</em>- The quotation from <em><a href='B:230 18:49'>Psa 18:49</a></em> is of David wanting to praise God among the Gentiles. Paul reads this as meaning that David looked forward to a day when the Gentiles would praise God, and he would be there amongst them doing the same.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:10'>Rom 15:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And again He says: Rejoice, you Gentiles, with His people</em>-&nbsp;"Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people" (<em><a href='B:50 32:43'>Deu 32:43</a></em>) is quoted here in the NT concerning Gentile response to the Gospel. But they will rejoice and respond&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;of God’s terrifying judgment of His enemies outlined in the context (<em><a href='B:50 32:41-44'>Deu 32:41-44</a></em>). In some way, the harder side of God attracts, in that men see in truth that He is God and they but men. His rod and staff of correction are our comforts (<em><a href='B:230 23:4'>Psa 23:4</a></em>). Israel will finally realize that God’s judgments upon them have brought them to know Him: “They shall know that I am the Lord, in that I caused them to go into captivity” (<em><a href='B:330 39:28'>Eze 39:28</a></em> RV):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:11'>Rom 15:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And again: Praise the Lord all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him-&nbsp;</em>This quotation from <em><a href='B:230 117:1'>Psa 117:1</a></em> is understood as putting "the peoples" in parallel with "all you Gentiles". The "peoples" were the tribes of Israel, and they along with "all the Gentiles" would praise Yahweh. The writer looked forward to a time when the Gentiles along with Israel would unite in praise of Israel's God. I suggest this because the other quotations here in Romans 15 parallel the Gentiles with Israel. And this was Paul's context here- Jew and Gentile should praise the Lord together in the church at Rome. "All the Gentiles" is defined in <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em> as "all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called". The language of all the world or all the Gentiles refers not to every single person, but to all those who have believed in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:12'>Rom 15:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And again Isaiah said: There shall be the root of Jesse and he that arises to rule over the Gentiles</em>- The 'arising' of the One who was the offshoot of Jesse was a reference to the Lord's resurrection. It was that which enabled all people to identify with His death and resurrection and thereby be saved. The "root of Jesse" rather than of David suggests that the Lord was prefigured by David himself.</p><p><em>On him shall the Gentiles hope-&nbsp;</em>"In Him"; by becoming in Christ by faith and baptism, the dead and resurrected Lord becomes the One through whom salvation is possible for anyone. Jew or Gentile.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope, in the power of the Holy Spirit</em>- The "hope" is the certainty of salvation made possible for all men by becoming "in Christ" (:12). The certain hope ahead comes from having sin dealt with, and the subsequent peace with God. And this brings joy. But the God who is the source of that Hope fills believing human minds with that joy and peace, "in the power of the Holy Spirit". The arena of the Spirit's operation is therefore in the human heart- for that is where joy and peace is experienced. This 'filling' by the Spirit is that found in <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>, where the believers "were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit". We note from that reference that 'filling' is an ongoing process, and not something which only occurs at baptism. The believers in Rome had already been baptized, and Paul wishes them to experience another 'filling', as happened in <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>. Paul uses the same word in :14 concerning how he believed they had already been 'filled' with all knowledge and goodness; but he wished that filling to be ongoing.</p><p><em>So that you may abound in hope-&nbsp;</em>They already had hope (:12), but the work of the Spirit in their hearts was to help them feel that, so that they might abound in that hope. Following through Paul’s reasoning in <em><a href='B:520 15:9-13'>Rom 15:9-13</a></em>, he seems to be saying that “hope” (RV) leads to joyful praising, which in turn leads to hope and trust. It’s an upward spiral, a positive circle. And each of those fruits of the Spirit become more gripping upon us the more we develop them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:14'>Rom 15:14</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I myself also am persuaded about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness</em>- Paul has just said that he is "persuaded" that there is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>); and he is equally persuaded that those who don't agree with his persuasion the "weak" in the church were just as much filled with the Spirit "<em>full&nbsp;</em>of goodness". This is what we observed in chapter 14- Paul felt that they were all to be of the same mind, that of Christ, the Spirit, even if they had theological differences.</p><p><em>Filled with all knowledge, able also to encourage one another</em>- The Holy Spirit filled the hearts of each of them, those with the old view of the food laws, and those who understood better in Christ. Paul believed that therefore they were able to 'admonish' (Gk:) each other, in the power and wisdom of the Spirit given to each of them. This was quite some unity- that the weak in understanding could still admonish the more mature or correct in understanding by the power of the Spirit within them. This is indeed "the unity of the Spirit", whereby those who have defective understandings of some things can still admonish those who have better understandings. All this is of course impossible of understanding by those who insist that 'truth' in terms of correct understanding is the final arbiter as to a believer's standing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:15'>Rom 15:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I write the more boldly to you in some way, as if putting you again in remembrance, because of the grace that was given me by God</em>- Again, having explained the intended unity between the two groups, Paul weighs in on one side of the debate as he did previously, in stating that indeed there is no food which is unclean of itself. He insists that he has the gift / grace of God to teach, and it has clearly been revealed to him that the Gentiles are to be accepted by God on the altar of Christ (:16). And moreover, he has been chosen to play a part in the acceptance of the Gentiles, and so his views about the food issue were not just his opinions but actually inspired by God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I should be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable</em>- See on :15. Throughout my commentary on Acts, I noted that Paul got himself into so much avoidable trouble through insisting on ministering to the Jews. His ministry was for the Gentiles. But he seems to have envied Peter's ministry to the Jews; for Paul was so much better qualified for that. But the Lord chose him for a ministry which he naturally appeared less suited for; because the Lord loves to work through human inadequacy. The double emphasis upon 'ministering' or serving shows that all Gospel preaching is a slave like service. All pride is thereby removed from any preaching work. Paul had had it revealed to him that the Jewish food laws were not to be binding upon Gentiles- and yet his calling was to make them an acceptable sacrifice. Therefore the acceptability of that sacrifice meant that his position on the Law was not just his opinion. They would be acceptable even without keeping the food laws. He uses the same word to explain how he hoped that his work for the Gentiles would be "acceptable" with the Jewish believers in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>); he wanted them to accept the Gentile converts just as God accepted them. And this has been his theme in this section- that we should receive those whom God and His Son have accepted. The Gentile believers were to be 'offered up'; they were to be a sacrifice. By using that figure, Paul shows his understanding that every believer is called to a life of sacrifice. He was simply enabling their acceptability.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em> speaks of the preacher as offering up his converts upon the altar note how <em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em> uses the same image of ‘offering up’ sacrifices to describe preaching. And this connects with how Paul had earlier spoken in <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em> of offering ourselves as living sacrifices in dedication. The aim of the preacher, therefore, is to provoke a sacrificial life in his or her converts, after the pattern of the Master whom they learn of.</p><p>When we read of ‘ministering’ in the NT, we are to generally perceive an allusion to the spirit of priesthood; for it was the OT priests who were understood as “ministers”. Paul speaks of preaching God’s word, both in the world and to brethren and sisters, as ministering (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:25'>Col 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>). He saw himself as a minister of the Gospel "that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). This is priestly language. Paul saw his efforts for others as preparing a sacrifice. He says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;ministers (cp. priests) of God, stewards of the true Gospel, and should act appropriately (<em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>). Others gave money to poorer brethren, and again this is described as ministering, priest-ing (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>). Reminding brethren of basic doctrines they already know is another kind of ministering (<em><a href='B:610 4:16'>1Ti 4:16</a></em>). Indeed, Peter says that we&nbsp;<em>each</em>&nbsp;have something to minister to each other, there is some way in which we can each serve each other (<em><a href='B:670 4:10-11'>1Pe 4:10-11</a></em>). We must bear one another's burden, as the priesthood bore the burden of Israel's iniquity (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a></em>). This is the meaning of priesthood.</p><p>Paul speaks of his preaching as being like a priest bringing the offerings of the Gentile converts as an acceptable sacrifice to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). This is very much the language of the prophets concerning the Messianic Kingdom- as if to imply that the Kingdom is brought about by our successful preaching? Hence it is in keeping with this to think that there would be a burst of conversions to herald in the Kingdom.<br/>Paul speaks of his preaching work as offering up the Gentiles, as if he is a priest (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>)- and in the same figure, Peter is encouraged to preach to Gentiles by killing and eating animals in a peace offering (<em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em>). The command that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel is referring back to how the priests had no material inheritance but lived off the sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>). And for us, the honour and wonder of preaching Christ should mean that we keep a loose hold on the material things of this life. And as we are&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>priests, we are all preachers.</p><p><em>Being sanctified by the Holy Spirit</em>- The presence of the Spirit in their hearts made them acceptable, as he has argued since the start of chapter 14, and as he explained theologically in chapter 8. The presence of the Spirit is what makes a believer "one of His", i:e. Christ's. We are not to think that they are unacceptable because of a difference on theology or practice if they have the Spirit. This central role of the Spirit in Paul's theology and practice must be given far greater weight in our communities.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:17'>Rom 15:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;have therefore my boasting in Christ Jesus in things pertaining to God-&nbsp;</em>Paul has just argued that the presence of the Spirit in the hearts of the Gentiles makes them acceptable to God, and the Jewish Christians must accept this (see on :16). Now Paul goes on to demonstrate how that same Spirit has been manifest in a very public, even miraculous way in his entire mission to convert Gentiles to Christ. The "things pertaining to God" alludes to the Jewish language of sacrifice. Those sacrifices were the Gentile converts, and they were acceptable despite Paul's position on the Law.</p><p>No flesh may glory before God (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>); but Paul, in his spiritual man, as counted righteous before God, could glory (<em><a href='B:520 15:17'>Rom 15:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed</em>- Paul saw himself as an agent of Christ. The Lord Jesus is not therefore passive. He is seeking to save others, He works through others to that end. He is trying to make Gentiles obedient. It is not enough to say that He has given them His word and it's just over to them now to obey or disobey. He works to persuade men towards obedience. And in the context here Paul is saying that this is done through the work of His Spirit.</p><p>Paul seems to have consciously modelled his life upon that of Moses; he evidently saw Moses as his hero. For example, he speaks of how he has been used to bring about God’s glory through “signs and wonders” (<em><a href='B:520 15:18-19'>Rom 15:18-19</a></em>), in the very language of Moses bringing “signs and wonders” upon Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 7:3'>Exo 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:9'>Exo 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:9-10'>Exo 11:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:22'>Deu 6:22</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:530 14:3'>1Co 14:3</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit-&nbsp;</em>The same Spirit active in the sanctifying or making holy of the hearts of Gentile believers had been more visibly active through the miracles he had performed, which were part of the efforts of the Lord Jesus to make the Gentiles obedient (:18). That the spirit does not just refer to the naked power of God is evident from <em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>: “the power of the spirit of God”.</p><p><em>So that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum-&nbsp;</em>His desire to go to Spain (<em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em> AV) indicates a commitment to taking the Gospel to the very ends of the world he then knew. He may well have been motivated in this by wishing to fulfil in spirit the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 66:18-19'>Isa 66:18-19</a></em>, which describes how Tarshish (which he would have understood as Spain) and other places which “have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory” will be witnessed to by those who&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;seen His glory and have “escaped” from God’s just condemnation by grace. Paul sees this as referring to himself. For he speaks in <em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em> of his ambition to take the Gospel to Spain; and in that same context, of how he will bring the Gentile brethren’s offering up to Jerusalem. This is precisely the context of Isaiah 66 - the offerings of the Gentiles are to be brought up to Jerusalem, as a result of how the Lord’s glory will be spoken of to all nations. So Paul read Isaiah 66 and did something about his Old Testament Bible study; he dedicated his life to taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, and he encouraged them to send their offerings to Jerusalem. He was no mere theologian, no academic missiologist. His study and exposition of Old Testament Scripture led to a life lived out in practice, to hardship, risk of life, persecution, loneliness, even rejection by his brethren. It is also significant in passing to note that <em><a href='B:290 66:19'>Isa 66:19</a></em> speaks of nations which occur in the list of nations we have in Genesis 10, in the context of the effect of Babel. It is as if Paul sees the spreading of the Gospel as an undoing of the curse of Babel and the establishment of the Kingdom conditions described in Isaiah 66. By his preaching of God’s Kingdom and the reign of Christ, he brought about a foretaste of the future Kingdom in the lives of his converts. And we can do likewise. Note how once again, the preacher preaches from his personal experience; Paul takes the vision of glory which he has beheld to those who have not seen nor heard. Paul speaks of how he had preached the Gospel from Jerusalem "as far round as Illyricum" (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>). This was a Latin-speaking province. Was he not implying that he had preached throughout the Greek speaking world, and now wanted to take it into the Latin-speaking world? He wanted to preach to the regions beyond his previous limits (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>); his aim was to spend some time in Rome and then preach in Spain.</p><p>Preaching, on whatever scale, involves a certain spirit of spiritual ambition;&nbsp; for example, the hope and faith that a leaflet, a mere piece of paper, might be the means of directing someone on to the Kingdom road:&nbsp;That a scrappy piece of paper, a passing comment at a bus stop should really lead a small mortal towards the eternal glory of God’s nature... without spiritual ambition the preacher just wouldn't bother to start. Paul was the supreme model of ambition in preaching:&nbsp;“I have&nbsp;<em>fully preached</em>&nbsp;the gospel of Christ:&nbsp;Yea, so have I&nbsp;<em>strived</em>&nbsp;(been ambitious, RV mg:) to preach the gospel" (<em><a href='B:520 15:19-20'>Rom 15:19-20</a></em>). In his last days (or hours?) Paul's mind returned to these words:&nbsp;His swansong in <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em> is a direct allusion to <em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>:&nbsp;"The Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the&nbsp;<em>preaching</em>&nbsp;might be&nbsp;<em>fully known</em>, and that all the Gentiles might hear". Paul's reference here to 'completing the Gospel from Jerusalem and in a circle as far as Illyricum' is a window into his ambition in preaching. He speaks of his ambition to preach in Spain; and so we get the impression of him planning a circle starting in Jerusalem, curving north-west, then further west to Rome, and then south-west to Spain. To complete the circle to Jerusalem would have involved him preaching in North Africa- where there were major Jewish centres, e.g. Alexandria. Perhaps he implies that his ambition was to preach there too, in order to 'complete the circle of the gospel'.</p><p><em>I have fully preached the gospel of Christ-&nbsp;</em>Paul speaks of having 'fulfilled' the Gospel by preaching it (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em> Gk:); the Gospel is in itself something which demands to be preached by those having it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Yes, making it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man's foundation</em>- Paul appears to have had a policy of breaking fresh ground for the Gospel and not getting involved where someone else had preached. It was his aim to spread the Gospel. He implies therefore that there were others preaching the Gospel apart from him. The metaphor of building is in context of Paul's teaching that they should be building one another up (a closely related word is used in <em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>). Always Paul consciously sets himself up as their example. He has reasoned that just as the Holy Spirit is at work in the hearts of the Gentile converts in Rome to sanctify them, so the same Spirit has been at work with him in his missionary work. He sees a huge unity of the Spirit throughout. And likewise he speaks of how they in Rome can build each other up, including the Jewish brethren building up the Gentiles, just as he is at work empire-wide building up the Gentile converts. When a person is baptized, they call upon themselves the name of the Lord Jesus. "Where Christ was already named" may therefore refer to areas where there had already been converts made.</p><p>Paul read the OT prophecies of how “to whom he was not spoken of, they shall see”; and he didn’t just see them as descriptions of what would ultimately happen. He realised that the fulfilment of this prophecy depended&nbsp;<em>to some extent</em>&nbsp;on our human freewill; and therefore he&nbsp;<em>strove&nbsp;</em>(against so many odds) to preach Christ where He had not yet been named (<em><a href='B:520 15:19-20'>Rom 15:19-20</a></em>). And he asks the Romans to&nbsp;<em>strive together&nbsp;</em>with him in prayer (<em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>)- i:e. to join him in the struggle to witness world-wide, in that they would pray for his success. It was God’s prophesied will that the Gospel would go world-wide; but it required the freewill strivings of Paul to enable it, and the strivings with God in prayer by the brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>.</p><p><em>But, as it is written: They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came, and they who have not heard shall understand</em>- Paul's policy of preaching in fresh areas was guided by his understanding of this prophecy. We are to use our initiative in fulfilling Bible prophecies, rather than assuming the fulfilment shall come about anyway. Indeed it could be argued that God’s purpose is so open ended that He as it were depends upon our initiative in fulfilling some of the prophecies. Here Paul appropriates a prophecy of how the news of the crucified Christ would spread to those who had never heard it. He didn’t just read those verses as prophecy; he saw in them an imperative to fulfil them. In <em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em>, Paul justifies his preaching by quoting from part of the suffering servant prophecy in Isaiah 52 / 53. That whole passage is set in a context of explaining “how beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings… all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (<em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 52:10'>Isa 52:10</a></em>). The preaching of good tidings and the declaration of God’s salvation was through the crucifixion. Paul quotes <em><a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a></em>: “To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand”. This was Paul’s justification for taking the Gospel to where Christ has not been named. Note in passing how the Lord Jesus sees us as “beautiful” in our witness to Him (as in <em><a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a></em>). Yet further into Isaiah 53, so much else jumps out at us as appropriate to Paul’s preaching: “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high cp. Paul knowing how to be exalted and abased, themes that occur in Isaiah 53 about Jesus’ death. As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man cp. Paul’s thorn in the flesh?, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider”. Paul appeared before Agrippa, Festus, and one or two Caesars, with a visage marred by his evangelistic sufferings.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:22'>Rom 15:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore I was hindered these many times from coming to you</em>- Paul could now see why he had been hindered from visiting the church in Rome- for they were converts of others, not his. He saw that it had been the Lord's wish that he continued his policy of breaking fresh ground for the Lord. His final insistence on going to Rome was not blessed- it could be argued. The Lord kept trying to hinder him, the wind / spirit blew against him as he voyaged there... but the Lord allowed Paul his insistence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:23'>Rom 15:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now, there is no need for me in these regions, and having these many years a longing to come to you-&nbsp;</em>The regions are of :19. He seems to be saying that he has done his shot in preaching to the Gentiles by preaching in an arc that began at Jerusalem; and now he is free, so he thinks, to come to Rome. But I would suggest that he was obsessed with a trip to Rome, capital of the empire. He speaks of how he had tried so hard to come to them previously (:19, and in <em><a href='B:520 1:9-11'>Rom 1:9-11</a></em>). The Lord had hindered him- because his work was to break fresh ground for Christ (:20). I suggest that he talked himself into thinking that he had done his work in breaking fresh ground for Christ. But surely that was wishful thinking. That work was not done fully, nor could one man ever surely come to a point where he could say that he has taken the Gospel to all the Gentiles. In commentary on Acts, I point out repeatedly that Paul's journey to Rome was not blessed, and he didn’t find there what he had hoped for. The Lord of course worked with him in his desire, but I would take his argument here as an example of self-justification.</p><p>There can be no doubt that the emphasis in the life of Paul was upon the geographical spread of the Gospel as far as possible. In around ten years, he established ecclesias in the four provinces of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. And then he speaks as if his work was done in that part of the world, he had spread the word from Jerusalem round to Illyricum i:e. throughout the Eastern half of the Empire, and therefore “I have no more place in these parts” (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:23'>Rom 15:23</a></em>). He speaks as if he has fulfilled the “line” or geographical apportion of areas to him, and now he was turning his attention to the Western side of the Roman empire, going to Rome, planning a visit to Spain. In some ways, this is surprising, for his letters indicate that the ecclesias he had already established were weak indeed. All in Asia turned away from him, and he warned the Ephesian elders of this. Ecclesias like Corinth were hopelessly weak in doctrine and practice, and many were turning away, either to the world, or back to Judaism as in the Galatian ecclesias:&nbsp; He could so easily have spent his life running around the Eastern half of the Roman empire, seeking to strengthen what remained. But he seems to have considered his work to have been done, and presses ahead with fresh witness in another part of the world. He wrote letters and made occasional visits to address the problems as they arose, but his stress was repeatedly on pushing forward with the work.</p><p>This comment that Paul no longer “had any room for work in these regions” may not necessarily mean that he had preached the Gospel to completion; rather could it be a sad admission from Paul that opposition from the Judaist wing within the church meant that he could no longer work for the Gospel sensibly without causing division, and so he proposed opening a new front of work in Spain. And this wouldn’t have been the first time when division between brethren has actually led to the Gospel spreading further, such is the way God works through the dysfunction of His children.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I hope to see you during my journey, and to be helped on my way by you, if first I may enjoy your company for a while</em>- His obsession was to "see Rome". I suggest that his appeal to Caesar was a desperate attempt to as it were force the Lord's hand and let him go there, when the Lord had hindered him several times from doing so (<em><a href='B:520 1:9-11'>Rom 1:9-11</a></em>). If he had not done so, he could have been set free and continued his work amongst the Gentiles. He makes out that he just wants to drop in and see them en route to Spain (:28). But Rome was not particularly en route to Spain. If Spain was his destination, there were more direct routes there, not least via Alexandria. But he clearly had an obsession with Rome, and broke away from his intended mission to only break fresh ground for the Lord. "To be helped on my way" is a phrase used to mean 'Fellowshipping me in my missionary journey' (<em><a href='B:710 1:8'>3Jn 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:6'>1Co 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:11'>1Co 16:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:3'>Act 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:14-15'>Act 17:14-15</a></em>). He was trying to get them to participate in the work of preaching to the Gentiles- see on :20.</p><p>The AV mentions his ambition for Spain- his spiritual ambition at a time when most men scarcely travelled 100km. from their birthplace, is just superb (<em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a></em>).</p><p>He says that if he is "satisfied" by the fruit of the converts in Rome, then he could move on to preach in Spain, if he could seal the spiritual fruit of unity between Jewish and Gentile converts in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em> RV). This is the spirit of <em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>, where Paul told the Corinthians that "when your faith is increased", then the measure or extent of his missionary work could be geographically expanded.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:25'>Rom 15:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints</em>- The Jerusalem welfare project had been another project Paul tried in order to bring Jewish and Gentile believers together in the work of the Spirit. And he was hoping to get the Roman church to in essence get involved in something similar; see on :20 and :24.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:26'>Rom 15:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it has been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem</em>- This was a very positive take on the project. For it ran into big difficulties; the believers in Achaia didn’t come up with their promised contributions, even though Paul had boasted that they were going to make those donations (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). And there is no record of what was raised being received positively; all we read of in :31 is Paul's doubt as to whether it would be received. Rather it seems did the Jewish Christians betray Paul into the hands of the orthodox Jews and Romans. Again we sense an obsessive side to Paul, a desire to make things work out, to prove that Jew and Gentile were in fact harmoniously united in Christ.</p><p>God is believer-centric; to Him, His 'world' is the believers. He speaks of "Macedonia and Achaia" as meaning 'the believers in Macedonia and Achaia' (<em><a href='B:520 15:26'>Rom 15:26</a></em>). “Samaria… received the word of God” (<em><a href='B:510 8:14'>Act 8:14</a></em>)- not everyone in Samaria, but those who did are counted as “Samaria” to God. The field of the ecclesia is “the world” to God; and note how the Corinth ecclesia were “God’s field” (<em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em> Gk:). Often Scripture speaks as if "all men" will be raised. <em><a href='B:520 2:6-9'>Rom 2:6-9</a></em> speaks of "every man" being judged at the second coming. We know that literally "all men" will not be.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>They were pleased to do it,&nbsp;and indeed they owe it to them</em>- The believers in Achaia had to be cajoled by Paul to come up with what they had promised, according to 2 Corinthians 9-11. And clearly there was much opposition from them towards Paul and his welfare project.</p><p><em>For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister to them in material things</em>- Again this is Paul rightly perceiving that Jew and Gentile both have the Spirit within them and working through and with them; and they ought therefore to work together. See on :20,&nbsp; :24 and :25. But he seems to wish to paint a picture of this actually happening on the ground, when in fact it was not at all like that. Human dysfunction was too strong.</p><p>All nations of the land were to be blessed because of Abraham and his seed, his one special seed Jesus and also his natural descendants. His children were intended to be a blessing to the other nations who lived around them, especially in that they were intended to bring them to Abraham’s God and Abraham’s faith. Now this is not to say that ultimately, Abraham and his seed will not bring blessing on literally the whole planet. <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> interprets the promise of the land of Canaan as meaning ‘the whole world’. But this was by later development, and on account of the universal blessing achieved by the sacrifice of Abraham’s greatest seed, the Lord Jesus. In the first instance, the blessing was to be upon all the families who lived on the ‘earth’ / land (<em><a href='B:520 12:3'>Rom 12:3</a></em>). There is a paradox here. For those already living in the land promised to Abraham, their land would be taken from them but they would be blessed. God was telling Abraham: ‘You will possess the land and all nations of that land will be blessed’. They were to give up their physical inheritance to receive a spiritual one- this was the ideal. Paul applies this idea to us when he says that if Gentiles have received the spiritual blessings of Abraham’s seed, ought they not to give their physical blessings to that same physical seed of Abraham? This is how and why he tells Gentile converts in Rome to send donations to the poor Jewish brethren in Jerusalem: “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things… I shall come in the fullness of the&nbsp;<em>blessing</em>&nbsp;of the gospel of Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 15:27-29'>Rom 15:27-29</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When therefore I have accomplished this, and have given to them this fruit, I will leave for Spain by way of Rome</em>- We rather wish Paul would have added 'God willing'. For this was not how things worked out. He was arrested and imprisoned in Jerusalem, nearly killed, spent at least 2 years in prison, and then forced his way to Rome by choosing to appeal to Caesar rather than being set free. And there is no Biblical evidence he ever made it to Spain. This situation also shows that having access to miraculous Spirit gifts didn’t enable people to foretell their own futures. "Given to them this fruit" is not the best translation. The idea is that he wanted fruit sealed for them. The idea is as in <em><a href='B:570 4:17'>Phi 4:17</a></em> where he says he asked the Philippians for a gift not because he needed it, but because it would be a spiritual fruit for them with the Lord. For all his obsessive characteristics, this was a lovely move of Paul. He wanted the Spirit within the converts to bring forth fruit which would be to their credit before the Lord. We too need to consider how best we can encourage fruitfulness in others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:29'>Rom 15:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I know that, when I come to you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ</em>- The language is very similar to that of <em><a href='B:520 1:11'>Rom 1:11</a></em> "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you". Paul seemed to think that his personal presence in Rome would result in their receiving some spiritual gift. Indeed he speaks of a fullness of blessing, as if he had something spectacular in mind. But there is no record of his doing anything of the sort when he finally arrived in Rome. So I am inclined to read this as I do his certain talk about going to Spain etc. He appears to have been "sure" (AV) of things which were not at all confirmed by the Lord- in his obsessive enthusiasm for 'Rome'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now I beseech you brothers</em>- Paul was so earnest for their prayers because he knew that prayer for others does really affect outcomes. Prayer for others either works or it doesn't, and each person must simply pray for their issues alone. But seeing that clearly prayer for others does 'work', Paul urges their prayers for his project. And we should have the same attitude.</p><p><em>By our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit</em>- The idea of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;here is more 'for the sake of…'. He wanted their prayers for the Jew-Gentile fellowship project because he was doing it for the sake of the Lord Jesus. He knew it would please the Lord, such unity and expression of love was what He died in order to achieve and enable. And it was for the sake of the love inculcated by the Spirit working within their hearts. Elsewhere Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit in the singular- simply, "love" (<em><a href='B:550 5:22'>Gal 5:22</a></em>). The love brought forth by the Spirit was what would motivate their prayers for the fellowship project. Paul's idea so far in this chapter has been that the Spirit is within both the weak and the stronger in Rome, it is operating in and through Paul too; and he asks that they channel the love brought forth by the Spirit into praying for his work with the Gentiles.</p><p><em>That you strive together with me in your prayers to God for me-&nbsp;</em>The allusion may be to Jacob's wrestling with God in prayer. Paul had so many times been hindered in coming to the Romans (<em><a href='B:520 1:9-11'>Rom 1:9-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:22-23'>Rom 15:22-23</a></em>); and he thinks those hindrances were from God, who had wanted to keep him focused on breaking new ground for the Lord Jesus. A visit to the church in Rome would not achieve that. And it seems Paul was as it were praying, even struggling with God, to be released from his calling to preach to the Gentiles, for his existing work to be counted as if he had fulfilled the ministry completely- so that he could then visit the existing church in Rome with God’s blessing. Their prayers were so that Paul could come to Rome "through the will of God" (:32), with God’s will behind it. So he believed that prayer could alter or at least affect God’s will.</p><p>Paul read the OT prophecies of how "to whom he was not spoken of, they shall see"; and he didn’t just see them as descriptions of what would ultimately happen. He realised that the fulfilment of this prophecy depended&nbsp;<em>to some extent</em>&nbsp;on our human freewill; and therefore he&nbsp;<em>strove&nbsp;</em>(against so many odds) to preach Christ where He had not yet been named (<em><a href='B:520 15:19-20'>Rom 15:19-20</a></em>). And he asks the Romans to&nbsp;<em>strive together&nbsp;</em>with him in prayer (<em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>)- i:e. to join him in the struggle to witness world-wide, in that they would pray for his success. It was God’s prophesied will that the Gospel would go world-wide; but it required the freewill strivings of Paul to enable it, and the strivings with God in prayer by the brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I may be delivered from those in Judea who do not believe</em>- He is asking them to pray the Lord's prayer for him: "Deliver us from evil" (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>). Paul realized he faced a real threat from the Jews who did not believe in Jesus. If he had focused upon his ministry to the Gentiles, he need not have run the risk of engaging with them. It could be argued that these prayers were not answered; Paul was not delivered from this element, who got him imprisoned for at least 2 years, and his plans to jet off to Spain from Jerusalem via Rome... simply didn’t happen. I have argued that his appeal to Caesar was a way of trying to force the Lord's hand in letting him achieve his obsession with visiting Rome.</p><p><em>And that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints</em>- He has just used this word about the Gentile converts being an acceptable sacrifice on the Christ altar (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). He uses the same priestly language about his 'service' of bringing an offering to Jerusalem, which he hoped would be acceptable&nbsp;<em>to the believers there</em>. He seems to be confusing acceptability to God, and acceptability to men. The idea of his Gentile-Jewish welfare project was that the Jewish Christians would accept the Gentiles and be deeply grateful to Paul personally, and accept him. His exclusion by the Jerusalem Jews, including it seems the Jewish Christians there, was painful beyond words for Paul. And he was trying to by all means find a way to end it, whilst at the same time being genuinely committed to producing unity between Jew and Gentile in Christ. In the end, there is no evidence that what offerings he did cobble together were accepted by the Jerusalem Jewish Christians. Rather have I suggested in my commentary on Acts that they in fact played a large part in his arrest and imprisonment. So these prayers and desires were not in fact answered, or at least not as Paul hoped.</p><p>After all his spiritual diplomacy in raising the fund, he had to ask the Romans to pray with him that the Jerusalem ecclesia would accept it (<em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>). Presumably they didn’t want to accept help from Gentile converts whom they despised. And if they didn’t accept it, then Paul would look as if he had got them to raise the money just to give to him. There must have been times when he thought of quitting the Christian community because of slander in the church. Paul was not a larger than life figure in the eyes of the early church. They didn’t see him as we do. The harder he worked, the more he was slandered, and the more painfully.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:32'>Rom 15:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I may come to you in joy through the</em>&nbsp;<em>will of God</em>- See on :30&nbsp;<em>Strive together</em>. Paul asked them to pray that he could come to Rome according to God’s will; so he believed that the will of God was not the inflexible 'will' of a false god like Allah, but the willing of God- which is an emotion, a feeling, which is thereby open to change and influence.</p><p><em>And together with you find rest</em>- The fact nobody from the Roman church stood with Paul at his trial, and he had to ask Timothy to bring him a warm jacket and writing equipment, all rather indicates that his hope and prayer for this was not finally realized. I suggest he had an obsession with the situation at Rome, albeit mixed with good motivations about the work of the Spirit and Jew-Gentile unity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:33'>Rom 15:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen</em>- "Peace" in Roman means peace with God through the Lord's work, and it is a fruit of the work of the Spirit which is given to all believers. "With you&nbsp;<em>all</em>" refers to the divide between weak and strong, Jew and Gentile within the church. He wished them each, regardless of their misunderstandings or misplaced dogmatism, to experience the peace of sin forgiven and the knowledge that our salvation is assured.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:1'>Rom 16:1</a></em> - see on :23.</p><p><em>I commend to you Phoebe-</em>&nbsp;Paul in 2 Corinthians seems to criticize the idea of letters of commendation and the practice of wanting to have some external commendation. He is not simply saying 'I converted you at Corinth, so you know me, and it is inappropriate for you to demand third party commendations of me'. He is saying that, but he says so because of his belief that it is only the Lord's commendation which means anything (<em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>). And yet he goes along with this idea in the case of Phoebe, because he goes along with their weakness and culture on this point. And we can take that wider principle.</p><p><em>Our sister</em>- Paul argues to Philemon that if Philemon considers Paul a brother in fellowship, then he must also consider Onesimus such. Because Paul considers Onesimus a brother. And the same logic applies here; Phoebe was Paul's sister in Christ, and the Romans were to likewise accept her as a sister. It could be of course that she was his literal sister; for we know that his sister's son was supportive of Paul.</p><p><em>Who is a servant of the church</em>- She was indeed a 'deacon' but the word simply means a servant and it is impossible to argue whether this referred to an official church position or not. Paul has just described himself in chapter 15 as a minister to the Gentiles, and it would seem he is extending that idea to Phoebe. So he is asking the 'weak' who were tacitly against the work with the Gentiles to accept another who was working likewise for the Gentiles- for the church at Cenchreae were likely Gentiles.</p><p><em>That is at Cenchreae</em>- The port of Corinth, from where it seems Paul was writing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:2'>Rom 16:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>That you may welcome her in the Lord</em>- This is the same idea as the exhortation to 'receive' the 'weak' in fellowship (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>) exactly because they too were "in the Lord". We suspect there was some opposition to receiving her- hence Paul's raising of the matter. Perhaps because she was a woman, or perhaps because she too was engaged in the ministry to the Gentiles. For Paul has just written of both the Lord Jesus and himself as being ministers of the Gentiles; and now he states that Phoebe is also a minister. Active fellowship of the kind envisaged here is predicated upon being "in the Lord". It is therefore utterly wrong to accept on one hand that a person is "in the Lord", but to deny them fellowship for reasons of church politics.</p><p><em>In a way worthy of the saints</em>- "The saints" is a term used about the final acceptability of the believers in God’s future Kingdom. Being 'worthy' or 'not worthy' is likewise the language of the last judgment (<em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em> etc:). Accepting our fellow believers is the "way" to eternal life; this is a characteristic of those who will be 'worthy' or appropriate to be saints eternally. Likewise those who refuse to fellowship their brethren are behaving as the unworthy of being saints.</p><p><em>And I ask that you assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you-&nbsp;</em>"Assist" is a legal term, used of presenting witnesses in a court (see <em><a href='B:510 24:13'>Act 24:13</a></em>). Paul uses the word of how the Lord Jesus stood with him in his trial (<em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>). Romans 12-16 continually alludes to the theological section of Romans; here to the triple request to "yield" or present ourselves for service to our new master who bought us out of slavery to sin (Rom. 6:13,16,19), the word meaning to present yourself. We are now the Lord's servants, but we need to present ourselves for service. And in practice this means saying to those in Him "Brother, sister, let me serve you, let me be the Christ to you". As she had 'stood before' others ["been a helper of many"], so they now were to stand before her ready to offer assistance.</p><p><em>For she herself also has been a helper of many, and of my own self</em>- Or, "succourer":&nbsp; According to Barnes: "The word used here means properly “a patron, a help,” and was applied by the Greeks to one who “presided” over an assembly; to one who became “a patron” of others; who aided or defended them in their cause; and especially to one who undertook to manage the cause of “strangers” and foreigners before the courts". The Cambridge commentary adds: "Lit. a champion; one who stands before another. The word conveys a graceful allusion to the request that they would “stand by” Phœbe: she had “stood before” many a needing and suffering Christian". The legal language used here leads me to think that she was in Rome on legal business on behalf of the Christian brotherhood. Perhaps she needed witnesses to testify, and Paul urges the Romans to participate. But we note from 2 Timothy 4 his lament that when he had to stand trial in Rome, none of them stood with him. Phoebe may simply have been noted as a patron or supporter of Paul and others; for clearly his work had to have been funded by someone. But it would seem there is more to it than that. A theme of chapter 16 is not only the mixture of Jewish and Gentile names, but also of slave and free, rich and poor. And further, the role of women is emphasized. It's as if Paul seeks to demonstrate that in the way the Spirit has worked with the Romans and those associated with his ministry, there was exhibited an amazing unity and breaking down of social barriers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:3'>Rom 16:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus-&nbsp;</em>Priscilla is usually mentioned first in the records, perhaps because she played the leading role in the ministry. And as noted on :2, the collapse of barriers between male and female, as well as between Jew and Gentile, was a feature of the Spirit's movement in Paul's circle of ministry.</p><p><em><a href='B:510 18:2'>Act 18:2</a></em> explains that Aquila was a Jew, born in Pontus, who had resided at Rome, and who had left Rome, and come to Corinth, when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome; so there is an internal consistency when we read that they have returned to Rome, as the decree was rescinded.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:4'>Rom 16:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who for my life laid down their own necks. To whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles-&nbsp;</em>This suggests they at some point (perhaps in Ephesus) had been willing to take Paul's death sentence. This was and is a response to the fact that the Lord laid down His life for us.According to Deissmann, this Greek term refers to the possibility of being murdered in the place of someone condemned to death. But 1 Clement 55 speaks of Christians serving prison terms for each other: “We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others”. They did this, presumably, because they believed Paul's freedom would result in the Gospel spreading further than it would by their own continued freedom. Therefore Paul goes on to say that "the churches of the Gentiles" were grateful for this. The context in Romans 15 is of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, and his desire that the Romans participate fully in it. So it would appropriate to mention the great example of Priscilla and Aquilla in this matter. We likewise may sacrifice money or even more to enable another to do work which we know we cannot do so well. If indeed they served a prison sentence on Paul's behalf, this might explain why they were back in Rome. Although :5 says that they had a house church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:5'>Rom 16:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And greet the church that is in their house-&nbsp;</em>The first of several mentions in this chapter of house groups. There is no archaeological evidence of dedicated Christian meeting places in the first century; the believers met as house groups, occasionally coming together as larger groups. If all the Roman house groups are mentioned in this chapter, then the size of the church in Rome may not have been larger than 100 members at the most- probably far less.</p><p><em>Greet Epaenetus my beloved, who is the firstfruits of Asia to Christ-&nbsp;</em>It depends how we define "Asia", because <em><a href='B:530 6:15'>1Co 6:15</a></em> says that “the household of Stephanas was the first-fruit of Achaia”. Perhaps Epaenetus was one of that extended family, perhaps a slave within it. The first convert in Asia, therefore, was an obscure slave. This is typical of how God works with the small things in human eyes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:6'>Rom 16:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on you-&nbsp;</em>Some manuscripts have the Hebrew form, Mariam; in any case, this is a Hebrew name. So she was a Jewish Christian in Rome who had done much for Paul personally, although Paul had never visited Rome. It seems all those in Rome whom he greets were in fact known to him personally, and had for various reasons ended up in Rome:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:7'>Rom 16:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Andronicus and Junias-&nbsp;</em>Junia could be Joanna:&nbsp;</p><p><em>My kinsmen-&nbsp;</em>Their names are Greek and Latin (respectively) as was common for Jews living in the empire. But they were "kinsmen". Perhaps his relatives, maybe from the tribe of Benjamin, but the point was- they were Jews. And Paul has been writing earlier about how the Jewish element were "the weak", still tempted to rely on legal obedience for justification. And yet it now emerges that a number of the Jewish element were in fact well known to Paul and actually his friends. His position on them was therefore purely from principle, as his natural desire would have been to cut his friends some slack, understanding their culture and where they came from.</p><p><em>And my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me-&nbsp;</em>Paul mentions elsewhere that he had "often" been imprisoned. The Acts record is very abbreviated, and most of them we are unaware of. It could be that even at Corinth, from where Paul wrote Romans, he was in prison- and these who were in prison in Rome were his fellow prisoners. Or perhaps at some previous point they had been imprisoned along with him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:8'>Rom 16:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Ampliatus my beloved in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>Tertius was a “scribe” (:22), which was a learned profession; Luke (:21)&nbsp;a doctor. Yet next to these brethren are listed the likes of Ampliatus, which was a common slave name. Romans 16 is an essay in the unity between rich and poor in the early ecclesia.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:9'>Rom 16:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Urbanus our fellow-worker in Christ-</em>&nbsp;“A common Roman slave name found among members of the household” (Sanday and Headlam).</p><p><em>And Stachys my beloved-&nbsp;</em>A rare Greek name, but recorded as being used among members of the imperial household. "My beloved" suggests that Paul knew this person from his previous missionary work- and now somehow this believer was in Rome and perhaps in Caesar's household. Paul's point is that the Gospel has united Jew and Gentile, and penetrated the most strongly Gentile places. And he asks the Roman church to participate in that mission which clearly was of the Lord through His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:10'>Rom 16:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Apelles the approved in Christ-&nbsp;</em>A name used among Jews and the name of a famous tragic actor. If this individual is referred to, then the point would be that his approbation was from Christ, and not because of his secular fame. And he is listed alongside petty slaves, at the other end of the social spectrum, but all together in Christ.</p><p><em>Greet them that are of the household of Aristobulus-&nbsp;</em>Paul writes to them as if there was one church in Rome, and yet he mentions the house groups of Aristobulus and Narcissus (<em><a href='B:520 16:10-11'>Rom 16:10-11</a></em>). Indeed, in <em><a href='B:520 16:14-15'>Rom 16:14-15</a></em> we have lists of names of brethren, and then the comment “and all the saints which are with them”. It could be that the long list of greetings to named individuals was more like a list of greetings to the various house churches which comprised the larger ‘ecclesia’ in Rome. Robert Banks observes: “Justin in his&nbsp;<em>First Apology</em>&nbsp;refers to several distinct house-based meetings in Rome as much as a century after the New Testament”.</p><p>Lightfoot suggests that this Aristobulus may have been the grandson of Herod the Great. But the reference to his "household" may not require that he himself was converted. For Paul doesn't greet him, but rather those of his household. So here we have a Roman of considerable distinction who had Christians among his servants or his slaves. He may have been dead, and the slaves continued to be known by their association with his extended family. Again we have the picture of slaves being a significant part of the Rome ecclesia. The metaphors in Romans related to slavery, and the message of radical freedom in Christ, would have been the more meaningful to them. The greetings to the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus (:11) suggests that the heads of these households had not been converted; otherwise they would have been greeted "and the church in their house". It was normal for slaves to follow the religion of the head of household. But these slaves had refused to do so and were Christians, although the head of household wasn't. Here again we see the sheer pulling power of the Gospel of Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:11'>Rom 16:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Herodion my kinsman</em>- Probably one belonging to the Herod family, but a Jew like Paul. Again Paul is seeking to demonstrate the very wide range of the Spirit's work with Jew and Gentile alike.</p><p><em>Greet them of the household of Narcissus, that are in the Lord-</em>&nbsp;Not all the extended family had been converted. Suetonius and Tacitus both mention a notorious Narcissus, a freedman of Claudius, who became one of Nero’s bad favourites. But within the household slaves of that man, there were baptized Christians, who it seems had been known by Paul personally at some other place in the empire. Again, the scope, range and penetration of the Spirit's work amongst the Gentiles is being emphasized. For these Gentiles of the Gentiles are listed along with Paul's "kinsman" Herodion, a Jewish believer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:12'>Rom 16:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who laboured much in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>The two sisters were labourers in the Lord, but sister Persis is commended for labouring much. The aorist may refer to some special occasion in the past, some particular great work she had done. Or maybe she had lost her labouring zeal and therefore laboured no more, or was too infirm to do the kind of labour she had once done.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>.</p><p><em>Greet Rufus the chosen in the Lord</em>&nbsp;<em>; and his mother, who also was as a mother to me-&nbsp;</em>A very common slave name, perhaps the Rufus of <em><a href='B:480 15:21'>Mar 15:21</a></em>. Paul the Roman citizen considered a slave’s mother to be his mother, who presumably was dead or had rejected him. Again we see the closeness of the new relationships in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:14'>Rom 16:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the believers that are with them-&nbsp;</em>Asyncritus is a name on an inscription in Rome, referring to a freedman of Augustus. If it is the same person, then he is significantly listed next to Hermes, a very common slave name. Paul would be demonstrating the truth of <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em> - slave and freedman were all together in Christ. Likewise there is an inscription in Rome mentioning&nbsp;<br/>Patrobas as a freedman of Nero. And this name is followed by Hermas, a common slave name. Slave and free are therefore being purposefully juxtaposed together. See on :23&nbsp;<em>Quartus</em>. "The believers that are with them" would suggest that there was a small house church associated with each of them. The slaves could feasibly run a house church comprised perhaps of other slaves and household members, right within the premises they lived and worked in:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:15'>Rom 16:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Philologus-&nbsp;</em>Another common slave name.</p><p><em>And Julia</em>- The commonest name for female slaves in the imperial household because of Julius Caesar. Perhaps the wife of Philologus.</p><p><em>Nereus</em>&nbsp;<em>and his sister and Olympa</em>- This name is found in inscriptions from the imperial household. Along with Julia, there is reason to think that there was a house group of Christians right in Caesar's household, comprised of believers whom Paul had personally known or maybe converted in other parts of the empire. He mentions no fewer than 26 such people here, whom he knew personally. They were at this point in Rome, although Paul had never been there. Perhaps had been driven from Rome by Claudius and had returned now Claudius was dead; Aquila and Priscila would be examples (Acts 18:2; Rom. 16:3). People were mobile within the Roman empire. Aquila had moved several times, from Pontus to Rome to Corinth to Ephesus and now back to Rome (Acts 18:1,2,18,26; 1 Cor. 16:9). But many of these names are slave names. Remember he had never yet visited Rome. We marvel how many slaves Paul knew personally. He, the Jewish rabbi, the intellectual, the educated and literate- had mixed with and converted those at the very lowest level of the social ladder. Many slaves could not easily get away from their masters, and so we imagine Paul entering the wealthy homes where they worked and lived.</p><p><em>And all the saints that are with them-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :14, this would seem to refer to house churches connected with each name.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:16'>Rom 16:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>.</p><p><em>Greet one another with a holy kiss-&nbsp;</em>There is repetition of the command to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;ecclesial members to greet&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the other members with a "holy kiss" (<em><a href='B:520 16:16'>Rom 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:20'>1Co 16:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:12'>2Co 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:14'>1Pe 5:14</a></em>). It's hard to translate into our terms the huge meaning of this in the first century world. It would've been unthinkable for a slave to take such initiative to kiss their master, or indeed any free person. This practice of all kissing everyone else in the congregation would've been arresting and startling. Sociologically, it stood no chance of ever being done. And yet these social and inter-personal miracles were what made Christianity stand out so noticeably- and in essence, our overcoming of social and inter-personal barriers ought to do the same for our community in the present world. But does it? Are we&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;markedly different from others... ? Is our love and unity of such an evidently deep and different quality? The implication is that all these various slaves from different households did meet each other for fellowship. We can imagine the issues they faced with shifts, getting free time off, permission to leave the household etc. And the same effort is required by us to achieve face to face fellowship in Christ.</p><p><em>All the churches of Christ greet you</em>- Just as Rome was comprised of house churches who met together occasionally, so it seems the church at Corinth from where Paul was writing was likewise composed of a similar network. And Paul would have made the effort to tell all in Corinth that he was writing to Rome, and solicited the greetings from the various house groups where he was.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now I urge you brothers, mark those that are causing divisions-&nbsp;</em>The article with each noun points to some well-known division; and the teaching in chapters 14 and 15 has made clear that the division related to issues between Jew and Gentile, and whether the Jewish food laws should still be kept by the Gentiles. It is not judgmental to note that certain individuals are divisive. Christianity is no call to naivety. We are not to judge in the sense of condemning, but we are indeed asked to be wise:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And create obstacles&nbsp;contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught-&nbsp;</em>Those who cause divisions cause “occasions of stumbling” (RV) and should therefore be avoided- because, the implication is, division causes stumbling. A&nbsp;<em>skandalon&nbsp;</em>referred to the twig on a trap which causes it to open. Divisions within the church may be over trivial matter, as trivial as a twig. But they cause people to stumble from the path to the Kingdom. It’s as simple as that. People stumble, in Paul’s experience, because of divisive people within the ecclesias. To be disunited was contrary to the doctrine taught; the specific teaching in view may simply be the commands relating to unity.</p><p><em>Turn away from these-&nbsp;</em>And yet has not Paul been speaking about the all-important need for unity? There are different levels of being out of fellowship with other believers. Any analysis of the NT teaching about ecclesial discipline will make this clear. Some brethren should be simply&nbsp;<em>avoided</em>, kept away from, not&nbsp;<em>necessarily</em>because they themselves are teaching any false doctrine (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em> Gk:). More seriously, <em><a href='B:600 3:15'>2Th 3:15</a></em> speaks of some cases where we should not count a brother as an "enemy", 'an opposing one', but admonish him as a brother, while&nbsp;<em>separate</em>&nbsp;from him; whilst <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em> describes other cases where the errant brother should be treated as we would a worldly Gentile (although note: “Let him be unto&nbsp;<em>thee</em>” singular; this is talking about personal decisions, not ecclesial withdrawal); and, going a stage further, <em><a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a></em> suggests we should not even keep social company with a brother who is involved in sexual perversion. These different levels of being 'out of fellowship' can be applied to the different level of separation there may be in practice between us and a false teacher, and those who perhaps in a misguided view of 'love' still tolerate him in fellowship. Even if we insist that <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em> should be applied to someone, it must be noted that the Lord’s attitude to tax collectors and Gentiles was to mix with them, even share table fellowship with them, with a burning desire to win them for His cause (<em><a href='B:470 9:9'>Mat 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). It is no accident that all these passages in Matthew have some reference to Matthew the tax collector being called and saved by the Lord. Matthew is effectively saying under inspiration that we should treat the person we decide to relate to as a tax collector and Gentile just as he had been treated by the Lord’s saving, calling grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:18'>Rom 16:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ-&nbsp;</em>Those who make divisions don't serve "our Lord Christ" (<em><a href='B:520 16:17-18'>Rom 16:17-18</a></em> RV); if they saw Christ's Lordship, they wouldn't be divisive, but be humbled into loving co-operation with His brethren. And yet those who make divisions in churches nearly all claim to be reluctantly doing so as part of their devotion to the Lord Christ. It was the same in the first century, and Paul clearly states that this is just so much flannel and excuse.</p><p><em>But their own belly-&nbsp;</em>It could be that there was some financial issue which further nuanced the question of obedience to the Law. Perhaps some were appealing to the Jewish law in order to demand tithes from other members.</p><p><em>And by their smooth and fair speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent</em>- The language of the serpent in Eden. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:19'>Rom 16:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For your obedience is known to all</em>- Obedience is a major theme in Romans; Paul liked to see the believers in Rome as a parade example of Gentile obedience to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</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>). He therefore feared that they would be led away by the Jewish false teachers, and this would negatively impact all those who had looked to them as an example of obedience. As noted in our study of Galatians, Titus and 1 Timothy, the legalism of Judaism was strangely attractive to the Gentile converts. To believe in salvation by pure grace is actually very demanding- for the wonder of it requires our all. The flesh finds it attractive to retain our acceptance that God and Jesus exist, but to slip back into a half-hearted attempt to keep a few laws in the hope that maybe we might be thereby accepted at the last day.</p><p><em>But I would have you to be wise regarding that which is good and simple concerning evil</em>- A reference to the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the need to not listen to the voice of the serpent. The true wisdom was in Christ, not in the serpent. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:20'>Rom 16:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you-&nbsp;</em>The ‘satan’ in view is I suggest the Jewish opposition, which was to be shortly destroyed in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem elite in AD70. The Jewish system ceased to be a serious adversary or Satan to the Christians in the aftermath of its destruction in A:D. 70, as Paul prophesied here. A closer study of the context reveals more precisely the mentality of the Judaizer Satan. Satan being bruised underfoot alludes back to the seed of the serpent being bruised in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. The Jews are therefore likened to the Satan-serpent in Genesis (as they are in <em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>), in their causing “divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>). Other details in Romans 16 now fall into the <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> context: “they that are such serve... their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (:18). The fair speeches of the Judaizers were like those of the serpent. Instead of ‘Why not eat the fruit?’ it was ‘Why not keep the law?’. <em><a href='B:290 24:6'>Isa 24:6</a></em> had earlier made the point that because of the sin of the priesthood “therefore hath the curse devoured the earth / land”; “their poison is like the poison of a serpent” (<em><a href='B:230 59:4'>Psa 59:4</a></em>).</p><p>The tree of knowledge thus comes to represent the Law – because “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (<em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>). The fig leaves which Adam and Eve covered themselves with also represented the Law, seeing they were replaced by the slain lamb. Their initially glossy appearance typifies well the apparent covering of sin by the Law, which faded in time. The fig tree is a symbol of Israel. It seems reasonable to speculate that having eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they made their aprons out of its leaves, thus making the tree of knowledge a fig tree. Both the tree and the leaves thus represent the Law and Jewish system; it is therefore fitting if the leaves were from the same tree. It is also noteworthy that when Christ described the Pharisees as appearing “beautiful” outwardly, he used a word which in the Septuagint was used concerning the tree of knowledge, as if they were somehow connected with it (<em><a href='B:470 23:27'>Mat 23:27</a></em>).</p><p>It was as if the Judaizers were saying: ‘Yea, hath God said you cannot keep the law? Why then has He put it there? It will do you good, it will give you greater spiritual knowledge’. <em><a href='B:580 2:3-4'>Col 2:3-4</a></em> shows this kind of reasoning was going on: “In (Christ) are hid&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words”. Here is another allusion to the serpent. Because all spiritual knowledge is in Christ, Paul says, don’t be beguiled by offers of deeper knowledge. Thus Adam and Eve’s relationship with God in Eden which the serpent envied and broke is parallel to us being “in Christ” with all the spiritual knowledge that is there. Hence Paul warned Corinth: “I fear, lest... as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>). The ‘simplicity in Christ’ was therefore the same as man’s relationship with God in Eden. So again we see the Judaist false teachers equated with the Satan-serpent of Genesis. <em><a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:680 2:1-3'>2Pe 2:1-3</a></em> specifically define these men who used an abundance of words and sophistry as “they of the circumcision”, i:e. Jewish false teachers. Those in 2 Peter 2 are described as speaking evil of Angels (:12 cp. <em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em>) – in the same way as the serpent spoke evil of the Angelic commands given in Eden. It’s been pointed out that there’s an Aramaic pun which connects the serpent&nbsp;<em>hewya</em>&nbsp;with the idea of instruction&nbsp;<em>hawa</em>&nbsp;and also Eve, the false teacher of Adam&nbsp;<em>Hawah</em>.</p><p>Back in Romans 16, the Judaizer Satans/ adversaries are spoken of as serving “their own belly” (:18) like the serpent did. Maybe the serpent liked the look of the fruit and wanted to justify his own eating of it; to do this he persuaded Eve to eat it. Because he served his belly, he had to crawl on it. Similarly the Judaizers wanted to be justified in their own keeping of the Law, and therefore persuaded Eve, the Christian bride of Christ (<em><a href='B:540 11:1-3'>2Co 11:1-3</a></em>), to do the same. “Yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple (AV mg. “harmless”) concerning evil” (<em><a href='B:520 16:19'>Rom 16:19</a></em>) – “be wise as serpents, (primarily referring to the Pharisees?) and harmless as doves”, Jesus had said (<em><a href='B:470 10:16'>Mat 10:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:21'>Rom 16:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Timothy my fellow-worker greets you, as do Lucius-&nbsp;</em>Luke the writer of the Gospel, who was often together with Paul and Timothy.</p><p><em>Jason-&nbsp;</em>The Jason of <em><a href='B:510 17:5'>Act 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:7'>Act 17:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Sosipater, my kinsmen-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;Perhaps the Sopater of <em><a href='B:510 20:4'>Act 20:4</a></em>, from where we learn he was Jewish. if these indications are correct, then Paul chosen to send greetings from Jewish brethren; having spoken of the Jewish element in Rome as "the weak":&nbsp;“Kinsmen” could mean they were Paul’s relatives, or that they were also Jews, perhaps also from Tarsus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I Tertius, who write this epistle, greet you in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>See on :8.</p><p><em>"</em>Note Paul's exquisite courtesy in leaving Tertius to salute in his own name. To dictate to him his own salutation would be to treat him as a machine".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>Gaius my host (and of the whole church) greets you-&nbsp;</em>Gaius had a home big enough for the Corinth ecclesia to meet in (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). The social mix amongst believers must have been startling. Excavations at Ostia near Rome have revealed how the spacious homes of the wealthy stood right next to the&nbsp;<em>insulae</em>, the blocks of squalid flats in which the poor lived. There was little differentiation of rich and poor according to which neighbourhoods they lived in. So when we read that the wealthy believer Gaius was ‘host of the whole church’ (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>), we are to imagine this wealthy man opening his spacious home to the urchins who lived in the neighbouring blocks who had come to Christ. This must have been startling for the surrounding populace. Such was the witness of true Christian unity.</p><p><em>Erastus the treasurer of the city greets you; and Quartus the brother</em>- The list of believers’ names in Romans 16 is there for a purpose: to show how all types had come together in the Rome ecclesia. Women are named and greeted uncommon in contemporary Jewish letters of the time; some names are common slave names: Phlegon, Hermes, Philologus; whereas tradition has it that the&nbsp;Narcissus mentioned was a famous and wealthy member of the court of Claudius. Greetings are given from two members at Corinth: “Erastus the treasurer of the city of Corinth salutes you, and Quartus, a brother” (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). There is an intended juxtaposition here: of the wealthy and powerful brother Erastus, and the unknown slave? Quartus, who all the same was “a brother”, on the same spiritual standing. Phoebe is described as the&nbsp;<em>prostates</em>&nbsp;of the Cenchreae ecclesia and Paul himself- a word translatable as “patroness” (<em><a href='B:520 16:1-2'>Rom 16:1-2</a></em>). It could be that she funded Paul’s activities at least in part. The same implication may be behind Paul’s description of the mother of Rufus as being his “mother” (<em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em>). This would have continued the example of wealthy women like Joanna supporting the ministry of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:2'>Luk 8:2</a></em>). &nbsp;If one goes through the Acts and the New Testament letters and makes a list of all the individuals who are named, we have a list of about 78 people. About 30 of these people have some indication in the narrative as to their social status; and the majority of these are from above average social stations. For example, the way Achaicus, Fortunatus, Tertius and Lucius in Corinth and Clement in Philippi all have Latin names in Roman colonies could well indicate that they were from the original stock of colonists, who tended to be well ahead of the local population.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:24'>Rom 16:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all-&nbsp;</em>The stress is upon "all". Both weak and strong, Jew and Gentile, those who correctly understood and those who didn’t or wouldn't, are all covered in the Lord's grace. Yet&nbsp;<em>charis</em>&nbsp;is used also of the gift- of the Spirit. Paul has argued that the experience of the Spirit's work is what binds believers together, and he wishes this to be with them all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:25'>Rom 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now to him that is able to establish you-&nbsp;</em>Stability of faith involves the direct operation of God in the human mind; he writes in <em><a href='B:590 3:13'>1Th 3:13</a></em> of how the Lord can establish hearts. And this is exactly the work of the Spirit about which this epistle has had so much to say. "Is able" uses the word Paul has earlier employed to explain how the unassisted sinner is&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>able to please God or obey his law (<em><a href='B:520 8:7-8'>Rom 8:7-8</a></em>). But God is able through the Spirit to transform us towards salvation- if we are willing and believing. The word "establish" is exactly how Paul began the letter, wanting to give them "Some gift of the Spirit, to the end you may be established" (<em><a href='B:520 1:11'>Rom 1:11</a></em>). He clearly did not have in view the word of the Gospel, for they already knew that. There was a Spirit gift which God was willing to give them which would stabilize them in faith so that they didn’t believe the false teachers. But surely Paul had somewhat justified his trip to Roman by saying that he wanted to come to them in order to impart that gift to them. God was willing to give that gift in any case and by any means. And he wishes that in whatever way, they may receive it.</p><p><em>According to the gospel I preach, which is the preaching of Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>As the Lord is the light of the world, so are we. We are Him to this world insofar as we preach Him. The message of salvation by faith alone and Holy Spirit strengthening was central to the good news Paul preached. But again the point is made to the Jews that Paul is not merely sharing his personal opinions about the law and salvation by faith- the Lord is preaching to them through his very words.</p><p><em>According to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept in silence through times eternal-&nbsp;</em>The mystery was of salvation by faith alone and not obedience to law, and of internal strengthening by the Spirit. Paul felt these things were indeed found in "the scriptures of the prophets" (:26)- once you start searching for them, looking back from a Christian perspective. But until the time of Christ, this great mystery was as it were kept secret.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:26'>Rom 16:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now is manifested, and in accordance with the scriptures of the prophets,</em>&nbsp;<em>according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known to all the nations to obedience of faith-&nbsp;</em>This is surely an allusion to the great commission- a command to take the good news to all the nations, so that they might believe and be baptized. The act of baptism is therefore hinted at in the phrase "the obedience of faith". Paul has used the same word about how God has made known the riches of His grace to us (<em><a href='B:520 9:23'>Rom 9:23</a></em>); our response is to make it known to others. Preaching is therefore a response to His grace and initiative towards us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:27'>Rom 16:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever-&nbsp;</em>That God alone is wise may be a final parry against the way the false teachers claimed to be offering new wisdom unknown to others. But clearly Paul also is simply commenting upon the wisdom of God in doing things the way He has.</p>


text:
<p>Paul and Corinth</p><p>In the letters to Corinth we really come to learn something of the mind of Paul; and he asked us to follow him, so that we might follow our Lord the more closely. So we want to analyse the relationship between Paul and Corinth in some detail; for we are all in desperate need of learning how to relate to each other better. &nbsp;</p><p>Firstly, let's firmly place in our minds the supreme spirituality of Paul. He saw visions which were unlawful to be uttered, he could look back on a string of ecclesias worldwide which were a result of his work, his writings show that he reached higher into the mysteries of God than most other man have ever gone. Naturally speaking, it must have been so difficult for him to relate to immature or unspiritual brethren and sisters! And yet his sense of identity with his spiritual children comes through all the time. Note&nbsp;how he purposefully mixes his pronouns: “<em>We&nbsp;</em>know in part…&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;</em>know in part…&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>see in a mirror…&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;spoke as a child” (1 Corinthians 13):&nbsp;</p><p>Now consider Corinth. Getting drunk at the breaking of bread, some members openly committing incest and other sexual perversions; and being justified by much of the ecclesia. Some had not the knowledge of God (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>). The basic truth of Christ's resurrection and the second coming were denied, and Paul was slandered unbelievably. There is fair emphasis on Corinth's willing belief of the vicious denigration of Paul's character, made by some of their elders (<em><a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:11-14'>1Co 4:11-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:20-27'>1Co 9:20-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:18'>1Co 14:18</a></em>). The depths to which that ecclesia sunk are hard to plumb. And yet Paul believed that they abounded in love for him; he asks them to abound in their generosity to others as they abounded in their love for him (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>). Truly Paul reflected his own experience of having righteousness imputed to him:&nbsp;</p><p>So the relationship between Paul and Corinth is fascinating, but above all it's instructive of not only how we should relate to each other, but how Christ relates to us. There is a strange paradox throughout the letters to Corinth. Paul uses the most exalted and positive language about them, enthusing about the certainty of their salvation, and yet he also accuses them of the most incredible spiritual weaknesses. There's a clear example in the chapter we've just&nbsp;read. In <em><a href='B:530 1:8-9'>1Co 1:8-9</a></em>, we read of Paul enthusiastically saying that God would "confirm&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;(note that) unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus". But then in v:12 he accuses every one of them of being guilty of factionism and division: "<em>Every one of you&nbsp;</em>(the same 'you' of v:8,9) says, I am of Paul...(etc:)". Paul really believed what he says in v:4: " I thank my God always on your behalf (implying: 'You ought to be thanking Him, but I'm doing it for you'?), for the grace of God which is given you...". This was the secret of how Paul managed to relate to them so positively; He deeply believed that they were in receipt of God’s grace on account of their being in Christ. &nbsp;</p><p>The Love Of Paul</p><p>So let's just review the positive way in which Paul felt towards his Corinthian brethren. His love for them was "in (his) heart, known and read of all men" (<em><a href='B:540 3:2'>2Co 3:2</a></em>). He boasted to others of their "zeal" to give money to the poor, even though it seems they had just made empty promises (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). And in <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> he goes even further; he speaks as if they had already distributed money to other churches. He saw them as righteous, even though they hadn't performed the acts they vaguely spoke of. Paul was surely reflecting the spirit of the Father and Son here. It may even be that Paul mentioned his devotion to Corinth in his 'front-line' presentation of the Gospel to others: "We preach... Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (<em><a href='B:540 4:5'>2Co 4:5</a></em>). His great wish was their "perfection" (<em><a href='B:540 13:9'>2Co 13:9</a></em>). Paul's deep-seated love for Corinth was absolutely evident to all who knew them; it was not an act of the will, which occurred just within Paul's mind. So often our 'love' for difficult members of the ecclesia is no more than a grimly made act of the will. Even in the midst of rebuking them, Paul uses the language of real endearment: "Wherefore,&nbsp;<em>my dearly beloved,</em>&nbsp;flee from idolatry" (<em><a href='B:530 10:14'>1Co 10:14</a></em>). The word "brethren" occurs as a refrain throughout the letters; it appears 19 times in the first letter alone, compared with 9 times in the letter to the Romans (a longer epistle). This is similar to the way in which Jeremiah repeatedly describes the Israel who rejected and betrayed him as “my people” (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 8:11'>Jer 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:19'>Jer 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:21-22'>Jer 8:21-22</a></em>). Despite all the cruel allegations made by them against Paul, he did not deal with them in the cagey, 'political' manner so common in our circles: "<em>O ye Corinthians,</em>&nbsp;our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged" (<em><a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a></em>). It is noteworthy that Paul is here alluding to <em><a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a></em>, which speaks of God’s word enlarging a man's heart. It was through his application to the word that Paul came to this large-hearted attitude. A smaller man than Paul would have trod mighty carefully with Corinth, making no more than succinct, measured statements. But his deep love for them led Paul to be as open-hearted as can be. Indeed, his pouring forth of his innermost soul to them in the autobiographical sections of 2Cor. is evidence of how his heart and mouth were truly opened and enlarged unto them. There was no shrugging if the shoulders within Paul at the spiritual plight of Corinth: "Ye are in our hearts, to die and live with you" (<em><a href='B:540 7:3'>2Co 7:3</a></em>). And it was this basic love which was in Paul’s heart which led him to a wonderful spirit of hopefulness; so that even towards the end of his second letter he can speak of his “hope, that as your faith grows, we shall be magnified in you” (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em> RV). &nbsp;</p><p>Corinth's Response</p><p>This love of Paul found at least some response from Corinth. Titus told Paul of their feelings for him: "He told us your earnest desire (for Paul), your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more" (<em><a href='B:540 7:7'>2Co 7:7</a></em>). Here they were, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and Gentiles of the Gentiles; in a state of spiritual love with each other. The strange paradox of Paul's great love for them, yet also his repugnance at their evil ways, is perhaps explicable in terms of their spiritual 'in-loveness'. As a spiritual sister (cp. Abigail?) can marry an alcoholic (Nabal?) because she sees the good side in him, whilst not turning a blind eye to his drinking; as a father ever loves wayward children; so Paul felt towards his beloved sons, his attractive young bride (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>) of Corinth. That there was at least some love for Paul by Corinth is made tragically evident from <em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em>: "The more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved". This is surely the language of falling out of love. And Paul was the aggrieved party. As with so many a father and young husband, Paul had to go through the pain of sensing that the object of his love was keeping him at arm's length, was being partial in their response to the great love he was showing: "You have acknowledged us (our love)&nbsp;<em>in part</em>, that we are your rejoicing" (<em><a href='B:540 1:14'>2Co 1:14</a></em>). Yet Paul took great comfort from their albeit partial response: "Now I&nbsp;<em>praise you</em>&nbsp; brethren, that ye remember me in all things" (<em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>); whilst struggling on to make them realize the intensity of his feelings towards them: "Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears (picture the old boy sobbing as he moved his quill)…&nbsp;<em>that ye might know the love</em>&nbsp; which I have&nbsp;<em>more abundantly</em>&nbsp; unto you" (<em><a href='B:540 2:4'>2Co 2:4</a></em>). Despite the spiteful way in which they demanded Paul bring letters of recommendation with him (<em><a href='B:540 3:1'>2Co 3:1</a></em>), Paul jumped at their even partial spiritual response: "Great is my glorying of you! I am filled with comfort, I am exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation" because of their positive spiritual reaction to the visit of Titus (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Hard Discipline</p><p>It is often implied that Paul was perfectly happy to put up with the mess at Corinth, and that therefore we should not be unduly concerned at the state of our latter day ecclesias. This could just not be further from the truth. Perhaps the greatest indication of Paul's love for Corinth is seen in his apparent severity towards them, his desire that they really should abide in Christ. Thus in <em><a href='B:530 4:21'>1Co 4:21</a></em> Paul parallels coming to them in love with coming "with a rod". The sarcasm of <em><a href='B:530 4:8-14'>1Co 4:8-14</a></em> (and many other places), his hard words of <em><a href='B:530 3:1-3'>1Co 3:1-3</a></em>, all indicate that he saw Corinth for the apostates which they were; and responded to this. "If I come again, I will not spare... know you not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except you be reprobates?" (<em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>). This was more than the externally strict schoolteacher with a soft heart, more than dad just laying the law down one evening. What Paul was threatening was radical; it may be that he would have used the power of the Holy Spirit to smite them with literal death. <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em> would imply that either Paul or another apostle had done this to them on a previous visit. "I am jealous over you with Godly jealousy" (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>) is one of a series of allusions in that chapter to the events of Numbers 25, where Phinehas was moved with jealousy to slay those who were "unequally yoked" with the things of Belial (cp. <em><a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a></em>). Paul had accused his Corinthians of just that; and he was quite willing to play the role of Phinehas. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>"I will bewail many that have sinned... if I come again, I will not spare" (<em><a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>) is actually an allusion to <em><a href='B:330 8:18'>Eze 8:18</a></em>: "Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here (in the natural and spiritual temple of Yahweh, cp. <em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>)?... therefore will I also deal in fury: my eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in my ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them". God’s anger with Israel as expressed at the Babylonian invasion was going to be reflected in Paul's 'coming' to spiritual Israel in Corinth. Yet for all his high powered allusions, Paul mixed them with the most incredible expressions of true love and sympathy for Corinth. In this we see the giant spiritual stature of that man Paul:&nbsp;</p><p>No Blind Eye</p><p>Paul evidently did not turn a blind eye to his brethren's failures. He spoke of them in one breath as being spiritually complete, whilst in the next he showed that he was truly aware of their failures. There's a glaring example of this in <em><a href='B:530 5:6-7'>1Co 5:6-7</a></em>: "A little leaven (which they had in their bad attitude, and also in the presence of the incestuous brother) leavens the whole lump. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump,&nbsp;<em>as you are unleavened</em>". They had leaven; otherwise Paul would not have told them to purge it out. But then he tells them that they are "unleavened". In other words, he saw them&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they were unleavened, but he recognized that they had the bad leaven among and within them. There's another blatant example of this in <em><a href='B:530 8:1'>1Co 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:4'>1Co 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>: "As touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge... (v:4) we know that an idol is nothing in the world... (v:7) howbeit there is not in every man (in the ecclesia) that knowledge". So Paul starts off by saying that they all knew about the correct attitude to meat offered to idols. But then he recognizes that in reality, not all of them did know, or at best, they did not appreciate what they knew. <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em> has more of the same: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you"; but then Paul goes on to show how they had blatantly disobeyed the ordinance he delivered them concerning the breaking of bread. Again, Paul sees the Corinthians&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they were perfect, but then goes on to point out their failures. This is surely a reflection of how the Lord Jesus sees each of us His people. <em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:18'>1Co 3:18</a></em> shows how the Corinthians thought they were wise, when actually Paul could only address them as carnal babes in Christ; they were not "wise". Yet in <em><a href='B:530 10:15'>1Co 10:15</a></em> Paul concludes a section with the words: "I speak&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;to wise men...". He treated them&nbsp;<em>as if&nbsp;they</em>&nbsp;were wise, when he knew that they weren't in reality. He begins by rejoicing that “in every thing you are enriched by him…in all knowledge” (<em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>), even though this was only potentially true- they had been given the knowledge, but had failed to turn it into true wisdom. Likewise Paul spells it out to them that their behaviour was likely to exclude them from the Kingdom; but in the same context he speaks as if it is taken as red that they will be in the Kingdom: "<em>The saints</em>&nbsp;shall judge the world. And if the world shall be judged by&nbsp;<em>you</em>…&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;shall judge Angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:2-3'>1Co 6:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>It is so significant that Paul did not turn a blind eye to his brethren's faults. In seeking to be positive, we so often do this. But we are asked to relate to each other, as Christ does to us. And he certainly doesn't turn a blind eye to our failures. Yet our problem is that if we don't turn a blind eye, we find it so hard to relate to our brethren. So what is the secret of being able to look at both the good and bad sides of our brethren? I suggest the answer is something along these lines:&nbsp;</p><p>At baptism, a new man was born inside us, personified in the New Testament&nbsp;as "the man Christ Jesus”, "the Spirit", etc. Yet there is still the devil within us, a personification of our sinfulness. We identify our&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;selves as our spiritual man (note how Paul refers to that side of him as "I myself" in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>). God looks upon us&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;we are Christ Jesus, He sees us as justified in Him, He sees us as if we are as perfect as Christ; not that we are in ourselves, of course. This is how He wants us to view our brethren; if we see them as God sees us, we will see them as the spiritual man which they have within them. Yet like God, we will not turn a blind eye to their weaknesses. Paul looked ahead to the day when God would have confirmed Corinth "unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus" (<em><a href='B:530 1:8'>1Co 1:8</a></em>). We too need to try to live the Kingdom life now; we must live&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;we are in the day of Christ's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:520 13:12-13'>Rom 13:12-13</a></em>). So in some ways we must see our brethren as they will be in the Kingdom. Thus in <em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em> Paul speaks about the day when Corinth's "obedience is fulfilled…&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;your faith is increased... we shall be enlarged by you... abundantly". "We are your rejoicing, even as you also are ours,&nbsp;<em>in the day of the Lord Jesus.</em>&nbsp;And in&nbsp;<em>this confidence</em>&nbsp;I was minded to come unto you..." (<em><a href='B:540 1:14'>2Co 1:14</a></em>). Paul's confidence in them was on account of the rejoicing he looked forward to having concerning them at the day of judgment. Some of his final words to them totally summarize his attitude: "This also we wish, even your perfection" (<em><a href='B:540 13:9'>2Co 13:9</a></em>). He looked earnestly towards the day when they would be spiritually matured. We too must recognize that we are all only children. We must look to what both we and our brethren&nbsp;<em>will be</em>&nbsp;one day, in spiritual terms. This certainly takes some spiritual vision. Yet Paul had just this: “…having hope,&nbsp;<em>when&nbsp;</em>[not ‘if’] your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you” (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>). He here recognizes that their faith is now weak, and must increase; but he also had written that they were to remain standing in the faith (<em><a href='B:530 16:13'>1Co 16:13</a></em>). They were weak in faith; this he recognized. But he recognized their&nbsp;<em>status</em>&nbsp;as being ‘in the faith’. So concerned was he with them that he says that if they were obedient to what he had asked them, then he would be ready to “revenge&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;disobedience” (<em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em>). It’s as if he was taking them one step at a time in bringing them to realize their errors; like the Lord, he spoke the word to men as&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were able to hear it, not as&nbsp;<em>he was able</em>&nbsp;to expound it or expose their failures. We are seeking the salvation and betterment of our brethren, not simply to air our perceptions of their inadequacies:&nbsp;</p><p>Corinth: Washed And Sanctified</p><p>He saw Corinth as truly saved in prospect, by reason of their being in Christ. He quotes the words of <em><a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a></em> “I will dwell in them and walk in them... and they shall be my God” about Corinth (<em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>)- even though those words were said to be describing a status conditional upon Israel’s obedience:&nbsp; "He which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and&nbsp;<em>shall</em>&nbsp;present us (not 'hopefully, if you get your act together!') with you" (<em><a href='B:540 4:14'>2Co 4:14</a></em>) sounds as if Paul fully expected the Corinthians to be there, and to be joined at the right hand side of the judgment seat by himself and Titus. <em><a href='B:530 15:51'>1Co 15:51</a></em> has the same certainty of their acceptance: "<em>We</em>&nbsp;shall be changed". "<em>We</em>&nbsp;(Paul and Corinth) know... we have a building of God... eternal in the heavens" (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>), i:e. the spiritual man Christ Jesus within each man who is in Christ. Truly could Paul write: "Our&nbsp;<em>hope</em>&nbsp;of you is steadfast, knowing that, as you are partakers of the sufferings, so should you be also of the consolation" (<em><a href='B:540 1:7'>2Co 1:7</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>They</em>, woolly Corinth, would judge the world in the Kingdom age (<em><a href='B:530 6:2'>1Co 6:2</a></em>). "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit,&nbsp;<em>be with you all "</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:540 13:14'>2Co 13:14</a></em>) must have taken some writing, even under inspiration. "Be with&nbsp;<em>you all</em>&nbsp;"would have included those Judaist-influenced brethren hell-bent on destroying Paul's work and image, those who had sinned grievously, and those whose doctrinal appreciation was starting to slip. Yet this was how Paul saw them; as being in Christ, and abiding in the love of God and fellowship of the Holy Spirit; thanks to their baptism into Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and abiding (at least for that present time) in that blessed relationship. <em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em> even shows Paul likening Corinth ecclesia to the guileless Eve in Eden, not yet having sinned, all innocence and uncorrupted beauty. And yet he saw himself as the Eve who had been deceived and punished by death (<em><a href='B:520 7:11'>Rom 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:13'>Rom 7:13</a></em> = <em><a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>); but he saw them as the Even who had not yet sinned. This was no literary trick of the tail; he genuinely felt and saw them as better than himself to be- such was the depth of his appreciation of his own failures. Paul saw Corinth as abounding in knowledge and love (<em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em>), even though they had some who lacked the basic knowledge of God (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>), and they needed exhortation to confirm their love to the disfellowshipped brother (<em><a href='B:540 2:6-8'>2Co 2:6-8</a></em>). Likewise, unfaithful Israel is still addressed as "the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing" (<em><a href='B:300 18:13'>Jer 18:13</a></em>); she was seen as a virgin right up until the Babylonian invasion, where she was as it were ‘raped’ (<em><a href='B:300 14:17'>Jer 14:17</a></em> Heb:). We reflect the same paradox in our efforts to see evidently weak brethren as still sanctified in Christ. &nbsp;</p><p>Having spoken of fornicators, idolaters, thieves etc:, all of whom were found within the Corinth ecclesia, Paul says: "But such&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (<em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>). The reference to washing, and the Father, Son and Spirit all points back to baptism for the remission of sins (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). The fact those people had been baptized meant so much to Paul. The significance of our brethren's baptisms should also make a deep impact on ourselves. By this act they became "in Christ". The Corinthians were committing idolatry, fornication etc. Paul was aware of that. But he was prepared to see them as being sanctified in Christ; he counted them as if this was not happening:&nbsp;<em>for the time being</em>. There was coming a time when he would no longer accept that they were in Christ, and when he would not spare them in any way (<em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>). The repented of failures of our brethren, however severe they may seem to us, must be overlooked if there is real evidence that they are making effort to abide in Christ. Unrepentant fornication or idolatry is hardly proof of this. "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>) indicates that Paul did not see them as reconciled to God; yet he looked at the man Christ Jesus within them in order to be able to have all the positive feelings towards them which he did. So clear was Paul's vision of their spiritual man that he could actually boast about their 'good side' to other ecclesias (<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 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). So enthusiastic was Paul about the great grace of God which Corinth basked in, that he actually made other ecclesias truly affectionate of Corinth: "which long after you for the exceeding grace (Paul knew just how exceeding it was to Corinth!) in you" (<em><a href='B:540 9:14'>2Co 9:14</a></em>):&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>And Paul showed this same spirit in all his dealings with his brethren. He could say in all honesty that “I am convinced, my brothers, that you are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another” (<em><a href='B:520 15:14'>Rom 15:14</a></em> NIV)- even though there must have been major problems in Rome, not least the Jew: Gentile division. He was so positive about them that he could write that he was sure that Corinth’s labour was “not in vain” (<em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em>)- and yet he knew that labour was in vain if converts fell away (<em><a href='B:590 3:5'>1Th 3:5</a></em>). Yet he acted towards them, and genuinely felt as if, they would not and had not fallen away. This was quite some psychological and spiritual achievement, given the depths of their apostasy. Corinth hated Paul, slandered him, despised him. And yet he can write that their love for him "abounded" (<em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em>). I take this not as sarcasm, but as a deep attempt by him to view them positively. We are challenged by Paul’s example to look at our brethren the same way. &nbsp;</p><p>"As God... has forgiven"</p><p>We are told to forgive one another, "<em>as</em>&nbsp;God for Christ's sake&nbsp;<em>has forgiven</em>&nbsp; you" (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>). All our sins were forgiven, in prospect, at baptism. All our irritating habits and attitudes, our secret sins, all these were forgiven then. And we must respond to this by counting our brethren to have received the same grace. Seeing we have received this grace, why do we find it so hard to see our brethren like this? Surely the answer rests in the fact that we don't fully believe or appreciate the degree to which God really does see us personally as being perfect in Christ. Paul was so super-assured of his own salvation, of the fact that God really did see him as a man in Christ, and therefore he found it easier to see his brethren in such a positive way. He was so conscious of how his many sins were just not counted against him. He knew that he was "chief of sinners", he didn’t turn a blind eye to himself; because he could realistically face up to his own position before God, he found it easier to do the same for his weak brethren:&nbsp;</p><p>The fact that Paul saw the spiritual man in all his brethren means that to some degree he saw them all as equal. He seems to bring this point out in <em><a href='B:530 4:14'>1Co 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:17'>1Co 4:17</a></em>: "As my beloved sons I warn you (Corinth ecclesia)... for this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son...". Paul calls both Corinth and Timothy his beloved sons. The implication is that to some degree, he felt the same towards dodgy Corinth as he did towards the spiritually strong Timothy. Likewise Christ showed his love for the whole church when he died on the cross. This does not mean, of course, that Paul did not have deeper bonds with some than with others. But the fact is that in spiritual terms, he saw all his brethren as equal, in that they shared the same status of being justified in Christ. Whether one had 2% righteousness and another 5% was irrelevant; they both needed the massive imputation of God’s righteousness through Christ. As Paul could call both Timothy and Corinth his "beloved sons", so God calls both Christ and ourselves by the same title (<em><a href='B:470 3:17'>Mat 3:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:2'>1Jn 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:13'>2Th 2:13</a></em>) . The reason? Because "he has made us accepted (by being) in the beloved (son)" (<em><a href='B:560 1:6'>Eph 1:6</a></em>). &nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother</em>- Paul often begins his letters by saying this. But "the will of God" should not be understood by us as it is by Islam, where the will of God is understood as fulfilling anyway in a deterministic sense. The word carries the idea of the intention, the wish or pleasure of God. Paul could have turned down the call to be an apostle. He was not forced into obedience by an omnipotent Divine manipulator. All things were created for God’s "pleasure" or will s:w. <em><a href='B:730 4:11'>Rev 4:11</a></em>, but clearly enough "all things" do not all perform God’s wish. We pray for the Kingdom age when God’s will shall be done on earth- for it is now generally not done. We are best therefore to understood the idea of God’s wish, His desire, which of course He labours to see fulfilled. But He does not force or impose; He too deeply respects the freewill of His creatures. The art of Christian life is to willingly align ourselves with His will.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To the church of God which is at Corinth, those that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints-&nbsp;</em>There is a play on words here. By baptism into Christ we are in Him, and are therefore made holy, sanctified; and therefore we are saints, holy or sanctified ones. Paul approaches the various behavioural issues in Corinth by encouraging them to live out in practice what they are by status in Christ, and to make use of the Spirit power potentially available to enable this transformation.</p><p><em>With all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place-&nbsp;</em>The Jerusalem pattern of gathering collectively in the temple and yet also having home groups was repeated in Corinth. 1Corinthians is addressed to the singular church in Corinth, which he parallels with “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus” (<em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>). Those ‘places’, I submit, referred to the various house churches in the city. He specifically mentions the house churches of Chloe (<em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>) and Stephanas (<em><a href='B:530 1:16'>1Co 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em>). The exhortation that “you all speak the same thing” (<em><a href='B:530 1:10'>1Co 1:10</a></em>) would then refer to the need for the various house churches to all “be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”. As we know, there was an issue of fellowship in Corinth, concerning a deeply immoral brother. If he avoided church discipline by simply joining another house church, they were not going to be joined together in “the same judgment”, and inevitably division would arise amongst those Corinthian house churches. There was to be peace rather than confusion “in all churches” (<em><a href='B:530 14:33'>1Co 14:33</a></em>)- i:e. all the house churches in Corinth. Paul’s complaint that “every one of you saith, I am of Paul… I of Apollos” (<em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em>) surely makes more sense if read with reference to each of the house churches, rather than every individual member. Paul speaks there as if the believers ‘came together’ ‘in ekklesia’ (<em><a href='B:530 5:4'>1Co 5:4</a></em>), i:e. the various home groups occasionally met together. Hence he speaks of when “the whole church be come together into one place” (<em><a href='B:530 14:23'>1Co 14:23</a></em>), i:e. all the house churches gathered together for a special fellowship meeting. He says that when they ‘came together’, then they should make a collective decision about disfellowshipping the immoral brother. Paul wrote to the Romans from Corinth, and he describes Gaius as the host of the whole church (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>)- implying that he had premises large enough for all the various house churches to gather together in. The abuses which occurred when the whole church ‘came together’ presumably therefore occurred on his premises.</p><p><em>Their Lord and ours</em>- Paul could be saying that Jesus Christ is Lord both of ‘us’ and also of all the congregations of believers. But he could also mean (and the Greek rather suggests this) that the same Jesus&nbsp;<em>understood and interpreted somewhat differently amongst the various believers “in every place”</em>&nbsp;was in fact Lord of them all. For your interpretation of the Lord Jesus and mine will inevitably differ in some points. Now this must of course be balanced against John’s clear teaching that those who deny Jesus came in the flesh are in fact antiChrist. However the idea is more likely that Paul is preparing the way for his repeated appeals for unity- Jesus is Lord of 'they' over there and also of 'us' here. "Theirs and ours" suggests Paul saw himself very much as standing with the Corinthians- which is significant, given his later criticisms and exposure of their behaviour.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ</em>- This was no mere formality; the "grace",&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, the gift Paul wished them was that of the Spirit in their hearts, and he goes on to develop this idea of the&nbsp;<em>charis</em>&nbsp;in :4.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I thank my God always concerning you-&nbsp;</em>The Corinthians slandered Paul, refused his teachings etc. But he can continually be grateful for them. We see here a lovely spirit. h thanks God because of what has been given them by status, and for how be believes God sees them, because of the righteousness imputed to them. Serious adoption of Paul's perspective would solve absolutely every church division and argument.</p><p><em>For the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus</em>- There is a clear connection between baptism and the receipt of the gift of the Spirit. By baptism "in Christ", the converts were given a&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, a gift or grace, from God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That in everything you were enriched in him-&nbsp;</em>They "were enriched" at baptism; but needed to make use of the gift. In detailing the work of the Spirit gift in the hearts of those who believe, <em><a href='B:560 3:16-20'>Eph 3:16-20</a></em> uses this same word for 'riches', and the same kind of ideas Paul uses in this section of 1 Corinthians 1 : "He would grant you, according to the&nbsp;<em>riches</em>&nbsp;of His glory, that you may be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, to the end that you would be rooted and grounded in love, that you might be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height, and to truly know and understand the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to Him that is able to do immeasurably above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us...". The complete spiritual enrichment of the Corinthians "in everything" is hard to square with their rather woeful spiritual state- getting drunk at the breaking of bread, denying the Lord's resurrection etc. But the point is that the gift of the Spirit had potentially enabled them not to be like this- and the appeal was for them to make use of the potential they had. They "were enriched" at baptism; but needed to make use of the gift.</p><p><em>In all utterance and all knowledge-&nbsp;</em>In all&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>gnosis.</em> These were the very things the Corinthians were tempted to seek from secular sources, and to leave Christ for. But they were blessed with everything- every word of wisdom was in Him, provided by His Spirit. They need not look to other sources of these things because all had been made available to them potentially by the Spirit they had received.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:6'>1Co 1:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you-&nbsp;</em>The preaching of Christ was confirmed&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;the believers by the gift of the Spirit within their hearts. And this was itself the testimony of Christ to the validity of their conversion to Him. The external miraculous gifts of the Spirit were given to confirm the preaching of the Gospel (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 16:20'>Mar 16:20</a></em>), but their withdrawal doesn't mean that the Lord Jesus doesn't still confirm the preaching of His word by the Spirit in an internal sense. This is the significance of the word&nbsp;<em>in&nbsp;</em>you. Paul says that this confirmation will work in them "until the end", i:e. the final glorification at the Lord's return (:8 s:w:). It was not temporary nor was it going to be withdrawn. A process is ongoing which is intended to bring us to final salvation at the Lord's return. This confirmation or 'establishment' is achieved by our being 'anointed'- a clear reference to the gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em> s:w:). The same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>, speaking of how the promise of salvation to Abraham is confirmed or AV "made sure to all the seed".  In this sense the gift of the Holy Spirit is the deposit which guarantees that really, our salvation is sure (2 Cor. 1:22 "who also sealed us and gave us the down payment of the Spirit in our hearts"; 2 Cor. 5:5 "God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee"; Eph. 1:14 "having heard the word of the truth... and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise which is a guarantee of our inheritance"). John puts it like this: "hereby we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave us" (1 Jn. 3:24). It is the seal or guarantee: "the Holy Spirit of God, by which you were sealed until the day of redemption" (Eph. 4:30). In this sense the gift of the Holy Spirit is the deposit which guarantees that really, our salvation is sure (2 Cor. 1:22 "who also sealed us and gave us the down payment of the Spirit in our hearts"; 2 Cor. 5:5 "God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee"; Eph. 1:14 "having heard the word of the truth... and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise which is a guarantee of our inheritance"). John puts it like this: "hereby we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave us" (1 Jn. 3:24). It is the seal or guarantee: "the Holy Spirit of God, by which you were sealed until the day of redemption" (Eph. 4:30).    </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:7'>1Co 1:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>The allusion is to how the disciples, sent forth in the power of the Spirit to do the Lord's work, lacked nothing: "When I sent you... did you lack anything?" (Lk. 22:35 s.w.). The gift of the Spirit is therefore in order to do the Lord's work. But the Corinthians didn't want to do that, and so they felt they still didn't have what they wanted. They had been enriched spiritually in every way (:5). But this was only true potentially. And this explains why a baptized believer may not sense the power of the Spirit in their hearts- because they are not allowing the potential to work. Paul is going to be appealing for radical changes in thinking and behaviour- but he begins by saying that all the power for that is already potentially with them. Paul later urges the Corinthians to covet the most useful Spiritual gifts (<em><a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a></em>). But he says here that they already have them all. So clearly enough he means that they must use their potential.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:8'>1Co 1:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Who shall also confirm you to the end, unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>The gift of the Spirit given as a confirmation at baptism (see on :6) would continue to work with them, if they allowed it, to present them acceptable at the day of final judgment. "Confirm" is the word elsewhere translated "establish": "He that establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the down payment of the Spirit in our hearts" (2 Cor. 1:21,22). In this way we are established by Jesus- if we allow Him to do His psychological work upon us: "rooted and up built in him and established in your faith" (s.w. Col. 2:7). </p><p>The same idea, in different language, is in Phul. 1:6 which speaks of how God began a good work in us and will continue working it out until the day of Jesus Christ. As in Phil. 1:6, we note the context of "the day of Jesus Christ", the final day of judgment when we shall be immortalized and made "unreproveable"; and the work of the Spirit which began at our water baptism. The work which began then and keeps on within us (Phil. 1:6) is the confirming / establishing to the end of 1 Cor. 1:8. But the Corinthians were not spiritual, despite having been given this working of the Spirit within them. There has to be some freewill response.</p><p>We can only be without accusation (Gk:) before the day of judgment by having righteousness imputed to us; this is the great theme of Romans. This is made possible by our part in the Lord's representative death for us (s:w. <em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>). But as Romans 8 explains, this is made true for us in practice by the Spirit working within us to lead us to that end in practice, and seeking to make us in reality what we are counted as by status.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:9'>1Co 1:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God is faithful</em>- The claims made here for the work of the Spirit may seem incredible, given our weakness, and the evident weakness of the Corinthian believers. But God is faithful- He will really do what He has promised. The faithfulness of God is associated in the Old Testament with His faithfulness to the covenant; and the Abrahamic covenant included within it the implication of the Spirit's work; this is very much part of the "blessing" promised. And God will surely fulfill His part; it is for us to be open to this and believe it.</p><p><em>Through whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord-&nbsp;</em>We through the Spirit are in active fellowship with the Lord Jesus. It's not a case of mere theological agreement with a set of Biblical principles. Paul assumes that the Corinthians, with all their immorality and misunderstandings of basic doctrine, were in fellowship with Jesus; and he therefore treated them accordingly. This is a huge challenge to those who feel they can only accept in fellowship those who can jump certain bars of their own creation regarding doctrine and practice. Repeatedly in this opening chapter, Paul speaks of "our Lord Jesus" (:2,7,8,10). Despite their major doctrinal and moral inadequacies, and their personal tension with him, Paul still saw them as connected with him in the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:10'>1Co 1:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now I urge you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment</em>- This appeal was made for the sake of the fact they were all "in the name" of the Lord Jesus by baptism into that name. They had therefore been given "the spirit of Christ", the mind of Christ. The "one mind" or "same mind" which Paul appeals for us to have is the mind of Christ (see on <em><a href='B:570 2:5'>Phi 2:5</a></em>). He's not confusing unity with uniformity, but rather reasoning that if we each allow the mind of Christ to be dominant within us, then we shall have the same mind / judgment because we will each have&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>mind. This is not therefore an appeal to each study the Bible in the same way and reach the same conclusions, or have the same level of discipline for those who fail in certain moral areas. Rather is it quite simply an appeal for us to have the mind of Christ. And thereby we shall be united, regardless of other issues over which we may differ.</p><p>“Be perfected together" (<em><a href='B:530 1:10'>1Co 1:10</a></em>) uses the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:650 10:5'>Heb 10:5</a></em>, where we read of the Lord's one body "prepared", joined together.  Being joined together in unity is therefore something which comes from allowing the Lord Jesus to do this. Human devices such as common statements of faith and unity agreements will not bring about the unity of the Spirit. That is just human wordsmithing. It only comes from allowing the Lord Jesus through the Spirit to join us together. Those open to this will be joined together in the unity of the Spirit, or as it is termed here, the fellowship of Jesus (:9), the fellowship "of" Him in that it is a fellowship created by Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers</em>- Paul doesn't mean 'They dobbed you in to me, so I'm taking it with you'. That would be responding to gossip. The 'report' would appear to refer to a formal, written statement- that may well have been inspired by the Spirit. Otherwise Paul surely could not have written such confidence that the report was true.</p><p><em>By those of the household of Chloe</em>- The 'church' at Corinth was comprised of various house groups; this one was apparently led by a woman, or at least were comprised of her household servants and family. Perhaps like Lydia she had converted her 'household' or extended family, including servants.</p><p><em>That there are contentions among you-&nbsp;</em>If they each had the mind of Christ, then there would not be contentions amongst them. Therefore 'contentions' are a sign of not having the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>)- i:e. the spirit / mind of Christ.</p><p>The first problem in the Corinth ecclesia, Paul said, was that they were divided. He begins his letter by addressing this problem, not the incest, the drunkenness at the breaking of bread, the false doctrine... See on <em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>By this I mean, that each one of you is saying: I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and&nbsp;I am of Christ-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em> speaks of three groups in the Corinth ecclesia, following Paul, Peter and Apollos. Yet in <em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em> someone says “I am of Christ" . This seems to be Paul himself- so Christ-centred was he, that he wanted no part in ecclesial politics nor in the possibility of leading a faction. His Christ-centredness was a phenomenal achievement:&nbsp;</p><p>A case can be made that the letters of Peter and Jude were also written to Corinth. Peter visited Corinth, presumably focusing his preaching on the Jewish community, and perhaps he was writing his letters specifically to the Jewish house churches there (<em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em>). The same concerns are apparent as in Paul's letters to Corinth: The need to distinguish between spiritual and unspiritual persons who despised others (<em><a href='B:720 1:19'>Jud 1:19</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:6'>1Co 2:6</a></em> to <em><a href='B:530 3:4'>1Co 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:1-3'>1Co 8:1-3</a></em>); those who perverted liberty into licence (<em><a href='B:720 1:4'>Jud 1:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 6:12'>1Co 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>), becoming slaves of sensuality (<em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:10'>Jud 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:16'>Jud 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:23'>Jud 1:23</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 6:9-20'>1Co 6:9-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a></em>); some eating and drinking abusively at the love feast (<em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 11:17-33'>1Co 11:17-33</a></em>); refusing the authority of their elders (<em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 4:8-13'>1Co 4:8-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:1-12'>1Co 9:1-12</a></em>); both Peter and Paul warn Corinth of the danger of worldly wisdom. Peter's reminder to them about the authority of Paul is very understandable in this case. However, the point of all this is to observe the tenderness of Peter and Jude in writing to the Corinthians "my beloved...", whilst at the same time warning them of the awesome judgment which there behaviour was preparing for them. It was the same passionate love for Christ's weak brethren which Paul showed them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?-&nbsp;</em>There are times when Paul uses the word "Christ" when we'd have expected him to use the word "church"- e.g. "Is Christ divided?... as the body is one... so also is Christ" (<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:12'>1Co 12:12</a></em>). This synecdoche serves to demonstrate the intense unity between Christ and His people- we really are Him to this world. Think through the reasoning of <em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>: “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?". The fact Jesus was crucified for us means that we should be baptized into that Name, and also be undivided.</p><p>Christ being undivided is placed parallel with the fact Paul was not crucified for us, but Christ was (<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>). The implication is surely that because Christ was crucified for us, therefore those He died to redeem are undivided. We have one Saviour, through one salvation act, and therefore we must be one. The atonement and fellowship are so linked. Christ is not divided, and therefore, Paul reasons, divisions amongst brethren are a nonsense:&nbsp;<em>Christ is not divided, and therefore neither should we be&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>). Let's remember this powerful logic, in all our thinking about this issue. Paul even goes so far as to suggest that if we do not discern the body at the breaking of bread, if we wilfully exclude certain members of the body, then we eat and drink condemnation to ourselves. This is how serious division is. The devil’s house is divided (<em><a href='B:470 12:25-26'>Mat 12:25-26</a></em>); Christ is not divided (<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em> s:w:). We were called to the Gospel&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;we might share in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus Christ- i:e. fellowship with Him and His Father, and with all the others within His body (<em><a href='B:530 1:9-10'>1Co 1:9-10</a></em>). If we accept that brethren and sisters are validly baptized into and remain within His body, then we simply&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;fellowship with them. Should we refuse to do this, we are working against the essential purpose of God- to build up the body of His Son now, so that we might exist in that state eternally.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius</em>- Paul goes on to list others he had baptized, and admits the possibility he had baptized even more than he named. So we have an example here of a grammatical construction whereby 'None' or 'Not' is not global and absolute; and we need to bear this in mind in the interpretation of :17.</p><p>Gaius had a home big enough for the Corinth ecclesia to meet in (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). Crispus was the leader of the Corinth synagogue and yet he and Gaius were the first people Paul converted there (<em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>). Thus in this case the initial response was from the socially well to do, although the later converts were generally poor. By all means compare with how wealthy Lydia was the first convert in Philippi. Anyone who was a household leader or with a home large enough to accommodate the ecclesia was clearly of a higher social level. Thus the Philippian jailer, Stephanas and Chloe had a “household” (<em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em>), as did Philemon; and even Aquilla and Priscilla although artisans were wealthy enough to have room to host an ecclesia (<em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:3-5'>Rom 16:3-5</a></em>). Titus Justus whose name implies he was a Roman citizen lad a house adjacent to the synagogue in Corinth. Mark’s mother had a home in Jerusalem that could accommodate a meeting (<em><a href='B:510 12:12'>Act 12:12</a></em>); Baranbas owned a farm (<em><a href='B:510 4:36'>Act 4:36</a></em>); Jason was wealthy enough to stand bail for Paul and entertain his visitors (<em><a href='B:510 17:5-9'>Act 17:5-9</a></em>). An Areopagite was converted in Athens (<em><a href='B:510 17:34'>Act 17:34</a></em>). Apollos and Phoebe were able to travel independently. Remember that most people at the time lived in cramped tiny rooms, so unbearable that most of their lives were lived outdoors as far as possible.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:15'>1Co 1:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Lest any of you should say you were baptized into my name</em>- Paul did baptize some in Corinth. But he means that he avoided baptizing people because of the way it would likely be used as the basis for factions in the future. He could have taken the position that 'I do not baptize into my name; and if at some later point some are to say I did, well, they are wrong, I did not'. But Paul is more sensitive to human weakness, just as we should be. He often sees ahead to the likely interpretations of his words and actions. Later he will parry possible misunderstandings of his words about resurrection by saying "But some man will say...". We too must move away from a bald truth- error scenario, leaving the misinterpretations of others upon their own heads, but rather anticipate their likely weaknesses; and by all means, seek to not make others stumble.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:16'>1Co 1:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Besides these, I do not know whether I baptized any other</em>- He doesn't mean 'I don't remember whether I did'; for he would have used a different word. He means that he is not aware of it in that he kept no record of who he baptized, neither formally nor mentally. This is a far cry from those who insist on getting all the details of the candidates they baptize, filling out forms and so forth. Such behaviour is appropriate to admission to membership of a club; but baptism into Christ is into Christ and is not a sign of having joined any human club or institution.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:14'>Gal 6:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>For Christ sent me not so much as to baptize, but to preach the gospel-&nbsp;</em>See on :14. The construction involving 'not' doesn't have to mean 'Not at all', but rather 'not' with conditions. Sometimes we need to read into the text the idea of "not so much&nbsp;<em>this</em>, as&nbsp;<em>that</em>". Thus "Christ sent me not so much as to baptize, but to preach the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em> AV). Paul of course&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;baptize people, as he goes on to say in that very context (<em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>). Or take <em><a href='B:300 7:22-23'>Jer 7:22-23</a></em>: "I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them... concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God". God&nbsp;<em>did</em>command sacrifices; but He&nbsp;<em>not so much</em>&nbsp;commanded them&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;required Israel's spirit of obedience and acceptance of Him.</p><p>Paul's mission was to spread the word; human response to it was not something he unduly focused upon. Inappropriate focus on results in terms of baptisms can lead missionary endeavour into all manner of wrong paths:This is probably hyperbole (i:e. grossly exaggerated language to make a point). The command to preach and baptize as given in the great preaching commission was just one command; preaching-and-baptizing went together. It seems to me that Paul&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;baptize; but using the figure of hyperbole, he's saying: 'My emphasis is on getting on with the work of preaching the Gospel, the fact I've held the shoulders of many men and women as I pushed them under the water is irrelevant; Christ didn’t send me to just do this, but more importantly to preach the Gospel'. And may this be our attitude too.</p><p><em>Not in the wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no power-&nbsp;</em>Paul did not seek to pressure people into baptism because he believed that the simple presentation of the cross of Christ would of itself elicit faith in people. This for all time demonstrates that apologetics and "the wisdom of words" will not persuade men to faith. That persuasion is in the message itself, which is of Christ crucified. No amount of smart arguments from science, archaeology, Bible prophecy being fulfilled etc. will of themselves persuade to faith. The bald presentation of the Gospel of the crucified Christ will of itself be 'powerful' to convert. And I speak from wide personal experience- as well as the clear implication of Paul's argument here. The paradox is that on the cross, the Lord 'made Himself of no power' (s:w. <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>), and it was that moment of human powerlessness which is of power to convert. This is the mystery of faith. It is a paradox which is developed in the following verses; what appears foolishness in the eyes of men is in fact the deep wisdom and saving power of God.</p><p>Paul had been reconciled, as have all men, by the cross. But he still needed to be converted, and this depended upon the freewill obedience of the likes of Ananias. It really is so, for Paul warned that preaching the Gospel with wisdom of words would make “the cross of Christ... of none effect” (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>). The effect of the cross, the power of it to save, is limited in its extent by our manner of preaching of it. And we can make “Christ”, i:e. His cross, of “none effect” by trusting to our works rather than accepting the gracious salvation which He achieved (<em><a href='B:550 5:4'>Gal 5:4</a></em>).</p><p>Paul declared unto Corinth “the testimony of God", i:e. “Christ and Him crucified" (<em><a href='B:530 2:1-2'>1Co 2:1-2</a></em>). This message was “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power", “the wisdom of God", “Christ crucified" (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:23-24'>1Co 1:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:4-5'>1Co 2:4-5</a></em>). Indeed, “the cross of Christ" is put for ‘the preaching of His cross’ (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>). All these things are parallel. The cross is in itself the testimony and witness of God. This is why, Paul reasons, the power of the cross itself means that it doesn’t matter how poorly that message is presented in human words; indeed, such is its excellence and power that we even&nbsp;<em>shouldn’t seek</em>&nbsp;to present it with a layer of human ‘culture’ and verbiage shrouding it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness</em>- See on :17&nbsp;<em>Not in the wisdom of words</em>. What seems foolish is the wisdom and saving power of God. There is a temptation to make our witness to the world in terms and colours which appear intellectually or even academically respectable. But we must ever remember the dichotomy here presented- that the wisdom of God will be seen as foolish to those who will not believe it. We can't have it both ways- an argument with secular respectability which is also the power and wisdom of God.</p><p>Because we are in Christ, therefore we witness Him; and we witness as He witnessed:&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>witness is in fact ours. But there is a sober theme in Scripture: that the essential witness of Christ was in His time of dying. “The preaching ‘the word’ of the cross” (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>) refers to the way in which the cross itself was and is a witness, rather than speaking of preaching&nbsp;<em>about</em>&nbsp;the cross.</p><p>Do we feel ashamed that we just don’t witness as we ought to? There is no doubt that the cross and baptism into that death was central to the preaching message of the early brethren. Knowing it, believing it, meant that it just had to be preached. The completeness and reality of the redemption achieved is expressed in Hebrews with a sense of finality, and we ought not to 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. Paul spoke of “the preaching of the cross", the word / message which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the cross (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>). 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. I submit 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 Russia invading Israel. 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. The Lord wasn’t preaching good&nbsp;<em>ideas</em>; He was preaching good&nbsp;<em>news</em>. The cross means that we have a faith to live by all our days; not just a faith to die by, a comfort in our time of dying, as we face the endgame.</p><p><em>But to us who are saved it is the power of God-&nbsp;</em>The cross is the power of salvation to us who are 'being saved', in the saving process. The cross is not only the means of our forgiveness, in a transactional sense, as if at that moment in time, God enabled our forgiveness and salvation. For He can and could have saved in any way He chose. The cross is the ongoing salvation of God in that the Lord there is our endless inspiration and His death released and releases the living waters of the Spirit into human hearts- if they continue to believe in Him there, in an ongoing sense.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:220 5:12-13'>Job 5:12-13</a></em>.</p><p><em>For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise-&nbsp;</em>The quotation from <em><a href='B:290 29:14'>Isa 29:14</a></em> refers to the false 'wisdom' of the unfaithful Jews in Jerusalem at Hezekiah's time. It was perhaps the attraction of the Jewish false teachers which Paul is alluding to. Judaism had a strange attraction for even hedonistic Gentiles; as pointed out throughout our commentary on Titus. See on :20.</p><p><em>And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nothing-&nbsp;</em>There is an allusion here to the Lord's words: "You did hide these things from the wise and prudent, and did reveal them to babes" (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>). Paul alludes to some parts of the Gospels more than to others. The record of John the Baptist, the sermon on the mount, the parables and the record of Christ in Gethsemane are all referred to far more than average. This surely would not be the case if&nbsp;the connections between Paul's writings and the Gospels were&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;the result of the Spirit irresistibly carrying Paul along. We have suggested that Paul's enthusiasm for the record of John the Baptist was because he had probably first heard the Gospel from John; i:e. there was a reason personal to Paul as to why he alludes to much to that particular part of the Gospels. And so with his sustained allusions to Gethsemane, far more than we would expect statistically. Presumably the picture of the Lord Jesus struggling against His own nature, driven to the brink of eternal failure, was an image which echoed in Paul's mind. Likewise the parables were intended to be memorized and meditated upon; Paul did just this, and that's why he alludes to them more than average. This sort of pattern is just what we too experience; there are parts of Scripture which stick in our minds, often for personal reasons. And so it was with Paul. <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em> was a verse which was perhaps very much in his mind as he wrote to Corinth; it is alluded to in <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em> - and nowhere else.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:20'>1Co 1:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Where is the wise? Where is the scribe?&nbsp;Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :19, this quotation is from a passage talking about the vanity of Jewish wisdom (<em><a href='B:290 33:18'>Isa 33:18</a></em>). And it was Jewish false teaching which was the source of the problems at Corinth. Truly Paul despised all worldly advantage and insisted upon the radical principles of the Lord- that true greatness is in humility, wealth is in poverty, worldly learning is the very opposite of Divine wisdom, etc. He mocks, even, such things when he writes to the Corinthians: "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?" (<em><a href='B:530 1:20'>1Co 1:20</a></em>). Every one of these terms would have been true of Saul the Pharisee, Paul the powerful user of rhetoric, Paul of the razor sharp mind. And he knew his worldly advantage, and despised it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God</em>- This is the paradox; that worldly wisdom does not lead to relationship with God. 'Knowing God' refers to relationship and salvation, not simply claiming some form of belief in the existence of a Divine being or force. Life eternal, living the Kingdom life we shall eternally live, is to 'know God' (<em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>). The Gospel message begins with the statement that to know God is a gift (<em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:10'>Luk 8:10</a></em>); for those to whom it is not given, everything about God remains in parables. And so faith is not reached by reading learned books about science, creationism, archaeology or the historical fulfilments of Bible prophecy. For that is the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness with God. If that indeed were the path to faith, then the illiterate and simple would be unable to come to faith. Yet the poor of this world are those "rich in faith". But the gift of faith is available for all- who will look to the cross of Christ as Israel looked to the lifted up serpent, and allow the power of it to transform them. Yet faith therefore is not arrived at by intellectual process; it is a gift. From God. And it is the cross of Christ (:18), the foolishness of the thing preached (:21), which leads to knowing God. There can be no real belief in God nor knowing of Him without Christ- for He is the only way to the Father. Any attempt to reach faith in God by intellectual process is therefore ultimately doomed; it can only be reached through encounter with Christ.</p><p><em>It was God’s good pleasure through the apparent foolishness of the message preached to save them that believe-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em> speak of the Gospel as “the foolishness of the thing preached” (RV) – not that it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;foolish, but it is perceived that way. The thing preached is clearly the cross- "For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (:18).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:22'>1Co 1:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Seeing that Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek after wisdom</em>- The Jews, like modern Pentecostals, demanded miraculous signs in order to believe; and the Gentiles thought that secular wisdom could be the only way to a respectable faith. But faith in the true God is predicated upon encounter with the crucified Christ. Nothing visible nor intellectual will of itself bring a man to faith; both the Bible and observed experience support that. Whilst there is a tendency to chalk up conversions to various forms of outreach, and it is hard to define why belief is reached, Paul is here crystal clear that the ultimate force in conversion is encounter with Christ crucified.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:23'>1Co 1:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness-&nbsp;</em>The cross was foolishness to the Gentiles and an offence to the Jews. In Roman thought, the cross was something shocking; the very word ‘cross’ was repugnant to them. It was something only for slaves. Consider the following writings from the period:&nbsp;<br/>- Cicero wrote: “The very word ‘cross’ should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these things or the endurance of them, but… the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man… your honours i:e. Roman citizenship protect a man from… the&nbsp;<em>terror of the cross</em>”:&nbsp;<br/>- Seneca the Elder in the&nbsp;<em>Controversiae</em>&nbsp;records where a master’s daughter marries a slave, and she is described as having become related to&nbsp;<em>cruciarii</em>, ‘the crucified’. Thus ‘the crucified’ was used by metonymy for slaves. The father of the girl is taunted: “If you want to find your son-in-law’s relatives,&nbsp;<em>go to the cross</em>”. It is hard for us to appreciate how slaves were seen as less than human in that society. There was a stigma and revulsion attached to the cross. This was the offence of the cross.<br/>- Juvenal in his&nbsp;<em>6th Satire</em>&nbsp;records how a wife ordered her husband: “Crucify this slave”. “But what crime worthy of death has he committed?” asks the husband, “no delay can be too long when a man’s life is at stake”. She replies: “What a fool you are Do you call a slave a man?”. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>The sense of shame and offence attached to the cross was also there in Jewish perception of it. Whoever was hung on a tree was seen as having been cursed by God (<em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>). Justin Martyr, in&nbsp;<em>Dialogue with Trypho, &nbsp;records</em>&nbsp;Trypho (who was a Jew) objecting to Christianity: “We are aware that the Christ must suffer…but that he had to be&nbsp;<em>crucified</em>, that he had to die a death of such shame and dishonour- a death cursed by the Law- prove this to us, for we are totally unable to receive it”. Justin Martyr in his&nbsp;<em>Apology</em>&nbsp;further records: “They say that our madness consists in the fact that we place a&nbsp;<em>crucified</em>&nbsp;man in second place after the eternal God”. The Romans also mocked the idea of following a crucified man. There is a caricature which shows a crucified person with an ass’s head. The ass was a symbol of servitude note how the Lord rode into Jerusalem on an ass. The caption sarcastically says: “Alexamenos worships God”. This was typical of the offence of the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But to them that are called, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God-&nbsp;</em>It has been pointed out that if some NT passages are translated into Aramaic, the common language of the day in first century Israel, there would have been ample encouragement for memorization. Thus: We preach Christ crucified (<em>mishkal</em>), unto the Jews a stumblingblock (<em>mikshol</em>), and unto the Greeks foolishness (<em>sekel</em>), but unto them that are called... the power (<em>hishkeel</em>) of God and the wisdom (<em>sekel</em>) of God" (<em><a href='B:530 1:23-24'>1Co 1:23-24</a></em>). "To them that are called" raises concerns as to whether faith, therefore, is just a gift given to some. But the call is in the Gospel, and specifically in the outstretched arms of the crucified Christ. All who encounter it are called; but many refuse to respond. Likewise we noted on :21 that to know God is a gift; but it is available to all who encounter His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men-&nbsp;</em>That Almighty all-wise God could inspire <em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em> is another example of God’s humility: “The foolishness of God… the weakness of God”. In <em><a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a></em> we find something likewise wonderful: “Do not abhor&nbsp;<em>us</em>… do not disgrace the throne of thy glory”:&nbsp;<em>We</em>, weak humans, are paralleled with the throne of God’s glory.</p><p><em>And the weakness of God is stronger than men-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in :27 about the believers being "the weak things". Many times, this word is used about spiritual weakness, especially in 1Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 4:10'>1Co 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:22'>1Co 12:22</a></em>). The foolishness of God has been defined as the cross of Christ; but that is now made parallel to the way God calls spiritually weak persons to be His vehicle of operation. Such an observation was relevant to the Corinthian situation. Those weak believers were used by God on account of their association with the cross of Christ, "the foolishness of God".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:26'>1Co 1:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Consider your calling, brothers; not many of you had worldly wisdom, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth</em>- The references to 'wise' and 'powerful / mighty' men use the words just used about the Lord Jesus as the wisdom and power of God (:24). He can only be those things to those who are not wise or powerful- or, rather, who recognize that they are not those things. So the attraction of His wisdom and power is to those who recognize they lack those things- the unwise and the powerless. And that is why it is the chain smokers and the asylum seekers and the get rich quick scheme enthusiasts... who have what it takes to believe in Christ as the power and the wisdom of God.</p><p>The Lord Himself had implied that it was to the poor that the Gospel was more successfully preached. And Paul observed that in Corinth, not many mighty had been called, but most of them were poor (<em><a href='B:530 1:26-28'>1Co 1:26-28</a></em>). “Christianity in its beginnings was without doubt a movement of impoverished classes… the Christian congregation originally embraced proletariat elements almost exclusively and was a proletarian organization”. It has also been observed that the New Testament generally is written in very rough Greek, of a low cultural level when compared with other Greek literature of the period. The way he exhorts the Thessalonians to work with their own hands so that the world couldn’t criticize them implies the readership of Thessalonians were mainly manual workers (<em><a href='B:590 4:11'>1Th 4:11</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:560 4:28'>Eph 4:28</a></em>:&nbsp;Paul wrote as if the “abysmal poverty” of the Macedonian ecclesias was well known (<em><a href='B:540 8:1-2'>2Co 8:1-2</a></em>); and yet he goes on to reason that they had “abundance” in comparison with the “lack” of the Jerusalem Christians (<em><a href='B:540 8:14'>2Co 8:14</a></em>). The Jewish Christians called themselves “Ebionites”, based on the Hebrew word for ‘the poor’- “it was probably a conscious reminiscence of a very early term which attested by Paul’s letters as an almost technical name for the Christians in Jerusalem and Judaea”. Even if not all these poor converts were slaves, they were all subservient to their employers / sources of income. Craftsmen would have had to belong to a pagan trade guild, normally&nbsp; involving idol worship which a Christian had to refuse, and slaves of course had no ‘right’ to their own religion if it differed from that of their household.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:27'>1Co 1:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But&nbsp;God chose the foolish things of the world-&nbsp;</em>The word&nbsp;<em>moros</em>&nbsp;is predominantly used about the spiritually foolish. This was so relevant to the spiritually weak Corinthians. They had been chosen so that in God’s strength they could come to glory. Maybe this is why the Lord forbids us to call each other&nbsp;<em>moros,&nbsp;</em>"fool" (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). That is indeed how we are, spiritual blockheads. But we are not to see ourselves nor each other from that perspective- for we are called to be so much more, and it is through that weakness that God is to be glorified in His Son. Paul is not saying that God only works with men who are fools or simple / uneducated. His point is that if any man thinks himself wise, he must become a fool (1 Cor. 3:18), and he puts himself in that category when he says that "we are fools for Christ's sake" (1 Cor. 4:10). </p><p><em>That He might put to shame those that are wise-&nbsp;</em>The 'wise' here are those who appear to be wise. The fools confounding the wise is an inverse allusion to the Lord's parables, where the wise are saved and the foolish are condemned e.g. in the parable of the two builders. But here, the foolish shame the wise. "Shame" is the language of condemnation at the last day- this 'shaming' will happen only then, when those who appeared to be so 'wise', so sorted out, so spiritually and worldly wise, shall be condemned and shamed by the salvation of the transformed 'fools'. This whole approach was very necessary in approaching a church as weak as Corinth. And it has enormous implications for us today. The idea of 'putting to shame' looks ahead to the day of judgment, when the rejected shall be shamed before the accepted (Dan. 12:2; Rev. 16:15). And so :29 likewise: "That no flesh should glory in His presence", at the day of judgment. That is the day when the fools of this world shall be glorified, and the wise shamed.</p><p><em>And God chose the weak things of the world, that He might put to shame the things that are strong-&nbsp;</em>The word for "weak" is elsewhere used about the spiritually weak (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:14'>1Th 5:14</a></em>). The 'shame' is in the condemning of the apparently 'strong' at the last day by the apparently 'weak'. These terms effectively mean 'those who consider themselves weak / strong'. Rather like the Lord's statement that it is the sick and not the healthy who need a doctor- we must read in the ellipsis: 'those who consider themselves to be…'. All this is an outworking of the principle that "the weakness of God in the crucified Christ is stronger than men" (:25).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God chose what is low and despised in the world-&nbsp;</em>"Low" is&nbsp;<em>agenes</em>, without descent. This may be a reference to the Gentiles, but "the world" of the first century despised people who could not prove where they came from. For people were identified by their ancestors and place of origin. Those who were on the very edge of society were those weak ones through whom His strength could work. Accepting this reasoning would make us conclude that the Christian church generally, and not just Corinth, should be comprised of the low, the stateless and those at the edges of society. For this is a general principle being explained here; it is not just relevant to Corinth. And yet in the West, the church is for the middle class. Historians claim that the early church was full of slaves, women and others on the edges. And this is what a mission church comprised of first generation converts will look like. The same Greek word for "despised" is used of the Pharisee despising the sinful publican in <em><a href='B:490 18:9'>Luk 18:9</a></em>, and those who understood more of the Gospel despising those who were still stuck in their old ways (<em><a href='B:520 14:3'>Rom 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:10'>Rom 14:10</a></em>). We note with interest the usage of the same word in Paul's appeal to ask those despised&nbsp;<em>within the church</em>&nbsp;to judge matters (<em><a href='B:530 6:4'>1Co 6:4</a></em>). Perhaps that too has a spiritual reference? But it was of course the Lord Himself who on the cross was the despised one; the same word is used about Him there in <em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>. He there was identified with the spiritually low and despised; for He died for sinners and not for the self-righteous. "Despised" is a word nearly always used about someone being spiritually despised. The publican was  despised by the spiritually superior Pharisee (Lk. 18:9),  the Lord was despised [s.w. "set at nought"] by the Jewish religious leadership (Acts 4:11), some spiritually despised others for their position on Jewish food laws, despising ['setting at nought'] their brethren (Rom. 14:3,10), some were despised ["least esteemed"] by others in the church (1 Cor. 6:4), the word of prophecy was despised by some in the church  (1 Thess. 5:20). God has this special interest not only in the economically and socially marginalized, but in the spiritually marginalized within the church. The alcoholics, depressed, mentally unwell, those who have been in many failed relationships... they are the ones who so often are the great ones in His eyes.  </p><p><em>Even things that are not-&nbsp;</em>The language here recalls <em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>: "God, who gives life to the dead, and called things that are not, as though they were". The context there is of imputed righteousness. Those who had no righteousness are counted as if they do- by grace. This fits in with the context here in 1Corinthians- the Corinthians were woefully immature but in God’s strength would be justified by grace through faith- and bring to nothing those people / things which appeared to be spiritually strong.</p><p><em>To bring to nothing things that are-&nbsp;</em>'Bringing to nothing' is the language of condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:530 6:13'>1Co 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em> etc:). The apparently strong, the things that apparently 'were' spiritually, therefore refer to those who shall appear at the day of judgment and be rejected. The idea of some at the judgment condemning others is to be found in various places- e.g. the men of Nineveh shall condemn the Jews of the Lord's say. So perhaps the picture is of those who appear so sorted out, so spiritually stable, so acceptable in secular terms... being condemned at the last day because they didn’t really believe in the good news of Christ crucified, whereas those who were socially, spiritually and intellectually disadvantaged compared to them actually did believe in that saving good news. This is a powerful challenge to today's church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that no flesh should boast before God-&nbsp;</em>In <em><a href='B:550 6:14'>Gal 6:14</a></em>, Paul says that he will boast s:w. in nothing but the cross of Christ. We are not to boast of works, but only of what was achieved for us by grace through our faith in the Lord's cross (<em><a href='B:560 2:9'>Eph 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:3'>Phi 3:3</a></em>). Any trust in human strength or wisdom is so abhorrent to God. He chooses the powerless and unwise, or at least those who recognize their lack of power and wisdom, to be the ones through whom He shall work. No wonder the Lord taught that the wealthy will scarcely be saved. AV "in His presence" looks ahead to the day of judgment as the time when the foolish shall eternally triumph over the wise (see on :27). It is then that we shall boast in the Lord (:31)- an allusion to the picture of judgment day in Is. 45:23-25: "To Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath. They will say of Me, ‘There is righteousness and strength only in Yahweh’. Even to Him shall men come; and all those who were incensed against Him shall be disappointed. In Yahweh shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory". These words are quoted by Paul about judgment day in Romans. We will not boast in ourselves in that day, for we shall be flat on our faces before the Lord Jesus. But we shall arise to boast in the Lord Jesus (:31).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But of Him are you in Christ Jesus</em>- We are "of God" in that we are born of Him by being in His Son by baptism into Him.</p><p><em>Who was made to us by God to be our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption-&nbsp;</em>It is those who lack these things, and recognize their lack of them, who are likely to earnestly believe in the Lord's offer of those things through the cross of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:31'>1Co 1:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That, according to what is written: He that boasts, let him boast in the Lord</em>- The whole purpose of calling the unwise, unrighteous and unholy is so that when they are saved at the last day, they will be glorying totally in the Lord's grace and in Him, in His characteristics which are counted to them. It is all a question of giving total glory to the crucified Christ and the plan of salvation by grace which is in Him. This is why self-righteousness, self-sufficiency, self congratulation, human wisdom and acceptance within human society... are all the very characteristics of the person who will not truly respond to the Gospel. The boasting in the Lord Jesus at the day of judgment is the scene of Is. 45:23-25; see on :29.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:1'>1Co 2:1</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>I brothers, when I came to you, I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God</em>- Paul has just argued in chapter 1 that the wisdom of God is in the crucified Christ, and those who are humanly wise will not respond to it. So Paul reasons that we should likewise present the Gospel with no attempt to make the cross of Christ somehow intellectually respectable, or acceptable in a secular sense. I have previously failed in this and so has so much Gospel outreach. Paul of course as a Rabbi and an intellectual could indeed have presented the Gospel with the trappings of secular wisdom. But he writes here as if he consciously stripped his message of anything like that. His message was after all, that of God in Christ- "the testimony of God". The Greek here seems to specifically mean 'evidence'. Faith is not built upon evidence that is visible (<em><a href='B:650 11:1-2'>Heb 11:1-2</a></em>)- and that includes arguments from science, archaeology etc. The evidence / testimony of God is "the cross of Christ"; and the addition of human wisdom to it makes it of none effect (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>). This is God’s evidence which He provides to us in order for us to have a basis for faith. In encountering the Lord Jesus there, we are challenged to believe in God, as faith in God really is. All the energy expended upon apologetics to provide a supposed basis for faith is therefore in my view misguided. It is psychological encounter with the crucified Christ which elicits faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:2'>1Co 2:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified-&nbsp;</em>See on :1. The "determined" reflects Paul's struggle with the temptation to make the message of Christ crucified somewhat respectable in secular terms.</p><p>The letters to Corinth must have been very difficult to write. Paul was walking an absolute minefield. Therefore he&nbsp; says that his attitude to Corinth was that he wanted to know nothing among them, saving Jesus Christ and Him crucified (<em><a href='B:530 2:2'>1Co 2:2</a></em>); he wanted to keep his mind fixed upon the Lord Jesus and the intensity of His passion, rather than get sidetracked by personality issues and ecclesial politics. And his letters reveal this. They contain many unconscious allusions to the suffering and death of Christ. Paul refers to Christ as "Lord" throughout all his letters about once every 26 verses on average. And yet in Corinthians he does so once every 10 verses on average. The Lordship and suffering of Jesus were therefore very much in Paul's mind as he wrote. His Christ and cross-centred perspective is a real example to us, living as we do at a time when the body of Christ increasingly distracts us from the central object of our devotion: the Son of God who died for us, and was raised again for our justification.</p><p>When Paul faced Corinth, the ecclesia whom he had loved and brought into being with great labour pains, yet now riven with carnality, fabricating the most malicious rumours against him, bitter at his spirituality... he determined to know nothing among them, saving Christ, and Him crucified. The antidote to ecclesial problems and selfishness is reflection upon the cross. By insisting on our rights, Paul says, we will make the weak brother stumble, "for whom Christ died". 'Think of His cross and sacrifice', Paul is saying, 'and the sacrifice of self restraint&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;are asked to make is nothing at all'.</p><p>Despite “the offence of the cross", Paul preached it. “I determined not to know i:e. ‘teach the knowledge of' any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified". Paul didn’t accommodate his message to the ears of his hearers. There are times when God’s revelation&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;accommodated to us, but not when it comes to the basic message of Christ and the demands which His cross makes upon us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling-&nbsp;</em>For Paul, his glory was not in heroic "deeds of the body" see on <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em> but rather in the fact that when he first preached to the Corinthians, he was suffering from "weakness... much fear and trembling"- a reference to anything from agitated nervous breakdown to malaria. We have <em><a href='B:550 4:13'>Gal 4:13</a></em> in the same vein: "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at the first". So it could be that this is a reference to his physical weakness at the time he preached to the Corinthians. But William Barclay understands the Greek words to more imply “the trembling anxiety to perform a duty”, and I tend to run with this. The words are a reflection of the heart that bled within Paul. The man who has no fear, no hesitancy, no nervousness, no tension in the task of preaching…may give an efficient and competent performance from a platform. But it is the man who has this trembling anxiety, that intensity which comes from a heart that bleeds for ones hearers, who will produce an effect which artistry alone can never achieve. He is the man who will convert another. It has truly been said that “the need is the call”. To perceive the needs of others is what calls us and compels us to witness, coupled with our own disappointment with ourselves, our race, our nature.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 2:3-5'>1Co 2:3-5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 15:26'>Joh 15:26</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:4'>1Co 2:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power-&nbsp;</em>This is parallel in thought to Paul's idea that he would preach the cross of Christ without any words of human wisdom. The "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" is thus paralleled to the cross of Christ. Here was and is the demonstration of Spirit and power. And yet in what sense can the cross of Christ be so powerful? I would say that the Lord's death was designed and is empowered to produce faith in God within those who accept it. For the Spirit was released as rivers of waters from His slain body. And especially in the first century context of illiteracy, the cross of Christ had power in that it was the motivation for the living examples of Christian sacrifice which were Christianity's best advert.</p><p>The essence of all this is the same today as it was then- the revelation of the person of Jesus isn’t solely through Bible reading and getting the interpretation right; it’s through a living community, His body. It is there that we will see His Spirit / personality in action. I don’t refer to miraculous gifts- but to the spirit / mind / disposition / essence of the Lord, man and saviour Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:5'>1Co 2:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God-&nbsp;</em>Paul has earlier defined "the power of God" as the crucified Christ (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>). Paul correctly perceived that a person's faith 'stands in' the message they first receive and believe. The teacher / preacher therefore has huge responsibility to teach the right thing. Real faith is not in the wisdom of men, Paul has argued, nor is it predicated upon anything other than the cross of Christ. And so he preached likewise- simply of the cross. The Greek phrase translated "stand in" is the closest we get in the Bible to an explanation of the substance of faith; of what faith is based in. And it is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;in "the wisdom of men", including apologetics. It is in the "power of God" which we have earlier defined as Christ crucified (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:6'>1Co 2:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>We speak wisdom, however, among them that are mature</em>- Paul spoke only of Christ crucified (:2), and so the true wisdom was Him. The "mature" would perceive this. For we have just been told that God has made Christ to be "wisdom" for us (<em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>). The Corinthians needed exhortation to become "mature" (<em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>); maturity has been reached by some now (<em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:12'>Col 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:14'>Heb 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:4'>Jas 1:4</a></em>) and yet in another sense it is yet future, when we attain the full measure of Christ's maturity (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:28'>Col 1:28</a></em>). The same Greek word is used in all these passages. The idea that faith is predicated upon encounter with Christ crucified will be struggled against, shot down as philosophically lacking, intellectually weak and so forth. But the paradox is that the mature will perceive it. When you reach 'Christ', the maturity that is Him, then we will understand that&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>is of Him and His cross.</p><p><em>Yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nothing-&nbsp;</em>The wisdom of this world and its "princes" (AV), its academics and philosophers and chat show hosts, is 'coming to nothing'. Paul has just used the same word in <em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em> of how the despised simple believers shall 'bring to nothing' what seems so smart and wise. The means by which the wise of this world shall be brought to nothing is through the simple believers. And the Greek tense used suggests that this is ongoing- the wise of this world are already "coming to nothing". The world rulers are defined in :8 as those who crucified the Lord; Paul envisaged the overthrow of the Jewish system as being at the hands of the humble Christian believers, including the worldly Gentiles of Corinth. Things didn’t work out that way because the Lord's return was delayed until our last days, but the principle remains the same.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:7'>1Co 2:7</a></em><em>&nbsp;But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery</em>- Paul doesn't mean that he has shrouded the simple message of the cross in "a mystery". For he has spoken of how his preaching is of the cross of Christ, stripped of literally anything else (:2). He means that the message of God’s wisdom, which is Christ crucified (<em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>), is so simple that it is received as a mystery by the wise of this world and indeed by all those who do not believe it.</p><p><em>Even that which was hidden, which God foreordained before the ages for our glory-&nbsp;</em>The appeal of the cross is "hidden" in that the 'wise' won't see it because they choose not to believe it. The allusion is surely to the usage of the same word in the Lord's teaching that the things of the Gospel had been 'hidden' from the wise, and revealed to babes (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 2:6-9'>1Co 2:6-9</a></em> stresses how the early believers possessed a truth which nobody else apart from them could know. Whilst this feature of true Christianity led into the arrogance and pride which eventually doomed the early church, when and whilst used properly, it bound them even closer together. Nikolaus Walter observes that the first century generally “did not experience religion as a binding force that was capable of determining everyday reality by offering support, setting norms, and forming community”. And yet the Truth of Christ enabled just such things to occur. In this, as today, the example of the community is the ultimate proof that the doctrine of Christ which we teach is indeed the Truth and of itself demands conversion:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Which not one of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory-&nbsp;</em>The rulers or princes of the world therefore referred specifically to the Roman-Jewish leaders who crucified the Lord. As noted on :6, those rulers were already 'coming to nothing' and would be condemned by the simple faith of illiterate Christians. Such talk of the overthrow of empire and ruling systems was criminal within the first century Roman empire. But Paul writes as he does, so important is the message of how simple faith shall gloriously triumph over all secular splendour.</p><p>Paul saw the naked, forsaken, mocked, bleeding, spittle covered body of Jesus as glorious. This was another inversion of all human values. And His glory is ours- for :7 has just mentioned that this mystery was foreordained for "our glory". The Lord's glory is ours, and ours is his.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But as it is written: Things which eye saw not and ear heard not and which did not enter into the heart of man, whatever things God prepared for them that love Him-&nbsp;</em>The context is speaking of man's rejection of the crucified Christ. Unbelievers did not perceive see or hear that message, neither therefore did it enter their heart. The "things God prepared" are therefore those of the crucified Christ, who died in order to achieve that great salvation "for them that love Him". The 'things prepared' are those of the Kingdom feast (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>); but the same word is also used of the 'preparation' of the Lord Jesus as our sacrifice (<em><a href='B:490 2:31'>Luk 2:31</a></em>). The cross of Christ enabled all the wonderful things of the Kingdom and the salvation experience in Christ. And it is all those things which are not really believed by the eyes, ears and heart of secular man, because the wisdom of this world has blinded them to it.</p><p>So the things which God has prepared for those who love Him, things which the natural eye has not seen but&nbsp; which are revealed unto us by the Spirit, relate to our redemption in Christ, rather than the wonders of the future political Kingdom (because <em><a href='B:470 13:11'>Mat 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:9-10'>1Co 2:9-10</a></em>). The context of 1 Corinthians 2 and the allusions to Isaiah there demand the same interpretation. We have a similar teaching discussed on Is. 55:7-9, where although God's ways and thoughts are high as heaven, Judah were condemned because "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways". When clearly they ought to have been. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God revealed them to us through the Spirit-&nbsp;</em>Again the allusion is to <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>, where the Lord praises the Father for 'hiding' His identity from the wise and prudent, and revealing it s:w. to "babies". Those immature, largely illiterate disciples who 'got it' about Jesus are therefore us. Here Paul adds that the process through which that revelation happens is "through the Spirit". This is not to say that one person is zapped by the Spirit and forced to believe, but another is not. There is indeed an element whereby faith is not simply a result of human steel will, but involves the gracious work of the Spirit on human minds. Yet as explained so far in Corinthians, it is our freewill choice to encounter the crucified Christ and believe in God’s salvation through Him.</p><p><em>For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God</em>- The "things" in view are surely those concerning the Lord Jesus and His kingdom of :9. These are the deep things, and not any apparent profundity of human wisdom or debates. The 'Spirit' is personified as searching around all the depths of God’s mysteries because we are going to now read that this Spirit has been given to us, so that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>might know those deep things. This is all beautifully shown by a comparison of <em><a href='B:290 64:4'>Isa 64:4</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em>: “Men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither has the eye seen, O God, besides you, what He has prepared for him that waits for him”. Paul quotes this in <em><a href='B:530 2:9-10'>1Co 2:9-10</a></em>: “It is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love Him. But God has revealed them unto&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;by His Spirit”. The passage in Isaiah 64 says that no one except God can understand the things He has prepared for the believers. However <em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em> says that those things have been revealed to&nbsp;<em>us</em>. Because His Spirit is given to us and becomes our spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:11'>1Co 2:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For who among men knows the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the things of God nobody knows, save the Spirit of God-&nbsp;</em>The spirit of a person is intimately connected to themselves. Only the heart knows its own bitterness in this sense, and likewise an external person can never totally get involved with the heart's joy (<em><a href='B:240 14:10'>Pro 14:10</a></em>). This is the wonder of the fact that God’s Spirit is given to us; this is the intimacy possible between God and man in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, so that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God</em>- The "we" refers to the same "we" who were speaking / teaching the Corinthians (:13) and refers I suggest specifically to Paul and his preaching team. The spirit of the world is the mindset of "the wisdom of this world". Although Paul had that in his rabbinic days, he disregarded it. The Spirit he had received was in response to his faith in the crucified Christ whom he had encountered. This was God’s Spirit, and revealed the things of God; and it was those things which he taught to the Corinthians in his preaching of the Gospel. The "things" were "freely given" in that the Spirit of God as it were searches all of God’s things. The connection between Christ crucified and the free gift of God’s "things" is developed in <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>, where the same words are used: "He that spared not His own Son but delivered him up for us all, how shall He not also with him freely give us all things?". Once we accept the gift of God’s Son, then all else, quite literally, is surely going to be given. And those things include faith and understanding. The Greek word for "freely given" is also that translated 'forgive'. Our experience of forgiveness on account of the cross opens the way to receive so much more too- all the things of God’s free giving. For the cross not only is the basis for the 'free giving' of forgiveness, but of God’s Spirit which knows all things.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:13'>1Co 2:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Which things also we speak about</em>- The "things" are those of the Gospel of Christ which Paul spoke or taught.</p><p><em>But not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but in words that the Spirit teaches</em>- Paul has said that he preaches Christ crucified without any words of human wisdom. They are the "things" in view. The words taught by the Spirit were therefore the words of or concerning the cross. Paul's teaching of the Corinthians was only verbalizing what the Spirit taught which flowed from the crucified Lord. We can now better understand why "the Spirit" is a title of the Lord Jesus in material like Romans, 2 Corinthians and Revelation. He personally is to be identified with His Spirit which He freely gives to all who believe in Him.</p><p><em>Combining spiritual things with spiritual-&nbsp;</em>The Spirit in Paul's message would connect with the Spirit within the believers at Corinth. The GNB seems to get the point of this rather difficult Greek: "As we explain spiritual truths to those who have the Spirit". It was and is only to the spiritual that spiritual things make sense; to all others, who do not believe the simple message of the cross and all that is given to us through His work there, the spiritual things remain mysterious and unwise. And I have to add, that those believers who resist the current work of the Spirit will likewise find many things closed and hidden, because the Spirit of those teachings is not being allowed to combine with the Spirit within them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:14'>1Co 2:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot know them-&nbsp;</em>Secular wisdom will not believe in a crucified Saviour. Instead of allowing the crucified Christ to convert them, they rush to Josephus and other early historians to enquire whether Jesus of Nazareth really died on a cross outside Jerusalem. But the point is that there is a power within Him there which of itself converts- if we let it, and humble ourselves to shed our human wisdom. Any references in Josephus etc. are at best confirmations of our faith, but play no part in essential faith in Christ. We must take seriously the repeated reports of the early missionaries, that they could not elicit belief in the message of Christianity or the Christian God amongst the illiterate folk they encountered in Africa or the Pacific islands- until they explained or drew pictures of the crucifixion. Then, all seemed to make sense- to those who felt their own sin and thirsted for forgiveness and connection with the one God. "The natural man" is the wise of this world who would consider the cross and all we have written about it to be foolish. Because human pride has stopped him believing. He will not "know" these things because he cannot- until he quits his human wisdom.</p><p>Paul saw the cross of Christ as parallel with “the things of the Spirit of God", the wisdom of God, what eye has not seen nor ear heard, but what is revealed unto the believer and not to the world (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:23-24'>1Co 1:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:7-13'>1Co 2:7-13</a></em>). The cross of Christ was the supreme expression of the Spirit of God, and it’s true meaning is incomprehensible to the world. In the cross, according to Paul’s allusion back to Isaiah, God bowed the Heavens and came down. He did wonderful things which we looked not for. The thick darkness there is to be associated with a theophany presence of God Himself. See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Because they are spiritually discerned-&nbsp;</em>Only the Spirit within a person who has believed in the crucified Christ will be able to 'combine with' or connect with Spiritual things (:13). The Greek word means literally to question; asking questions as we read God’s word is therefore an appropriate thing for us to be doing. Paul is not advocating a simplistic approach, nor a shutting down of any critical, analytical approach.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>But he that is spiritual judges all things; and he is ultimately judged by no man-&nbsp;</em>Those who have believed in the crucified Lord will receive of His Spirit, and are thereby able to judge or discern the truth of the things Paul was preaching. Such persons will be mocked and despised by the wise of this world; but ultimately, they are not judged by those men. Indeed, they shall bring to nothing all such pretensions in the day of final judgment, as explained in <em><a href='B:530 1:27-28'>1Co 1:27-28</a></em> (see notes there).</p><p>In the final analysis, we will meet Jesus alone. There will by God’s grace be a moment when we will even see the face of Almighty God- alone. This was the light at the end of Job’s tunnel- he would see his redeemer for himself “and not another”. Paul possibly expresses the same idea of an unenterable relationship in <em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>: "He that is spiritual discerneth all things (about God), yet he himself is discerned of no man":&nbsp; Our real spiritual being is a "hidden man" (<em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>). The Spirit describes our final redemption as our "soul" and "spirit" being "saved" ; our innermost being, our essential spiritual personality, who we&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;are in spiritual terms, will as it were be immortalized (<em><a href='B:670 1:9'>1Pe 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>). Notice that Paul styles the spiritual man "he himself" (<em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em> AV); as if the real, fundamental self of the true believer is the spiritual man, notwithstanding the existence of the man of the flesh within him. Likewise Paul calls his spiritual man "I myself" in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>. He now felt that when he sinned, it was no longer “I", his real, personal self, who was doing so (<em><a href='B:520 7:17'>Rom 7:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:220 21:22'>Job 21:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ</em>- The person who knows the Lord's mind is the one who has His Spirit (:11). We have the mind of Christ, who had the mind of God. The spirit of Christ and that of God are the same thing. The idea that men should instruct God is unthinkable- but this is what effectively is the position of those who consider that their human wisdom is the true wisdom, and God’s wisdom is foolishness. The quotation from <em><a href='B:290 40:13-14'>Isa 40:13-14</a></em> is about God’s people in Babylon being tempted to think that the wisdom of Babylon, perhaps the most advanced in the world at its time, was somehow superior to that of Israel's God. Paul uses the same idea in <em><a href='B:520 11:34'>Rom 11:34</a></em> concerning the false wisdom of Judaism claiming as it were to be superior to God’s wisdom in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I, brothers, can not speak to you as spiritual people, but as carnal people-&nbsp;</em>The "we" who have the Spirit in <em><a href='B:530 2:13'>1Co 2:13</a></em> refer to Paul and his preaching team and not all at Corinth. The Corinthians possessed the miraculous gifts, but were in a more fundamental sense Spirit-less. “John did no miracle”, but was filled with the Spirit from his birth. Even the Comforter, which does refer to the miraculous gifts in its primary context, was, in perhaps another sense, to be unseen by the world, and to be&nbsp;<em>within&nbsp;</em>the believers (<em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em>). It could well be that the Lord’s discourse with Nicodemus concerning the need to be born both of water and Spirit must be read in the context of John’s baptism; his was a birth of water, but Christian baptism is being described with an almost technical term: birth of the Spirit, in that baptism into the Spirit of Jesus brings the believer into the realm of the operation of God’s Spirit. But as happened with the Corinthians, it is possible to deny the Spirit any space to operate within us; those who resist any idea of the Spirit working directly within the human mind are putting themselves in the same position. This is the answer to those who complain that they were baptized but 'feel' no Spirit operation; the potential was given, and is still there, as chapters 1 and 2 make so clear about the Corinthians; but they were not Spirit-filled because they didn’t allow it.</p><p><em>As infants in Christ</em>- But they were still "in Christ". And Paul respects them for that.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:2'>1Co 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I fed you with milk, not with solid food. For you were not yet able to bear it; no, not even now are you able-&nbsp;</em>Paul has defined what he initially taught them as being the crucified Christ. And he has proceeded to develop the idea that the presence of the Spirit within believers in Christ will enable them to 'combine with' further Spiritual teaching. But despite their initial belief, like so many today, they had not remained open to the Spirit, and so Paul was unable to share with them the deeper matters of the Spirit. Or if he did, they could not connect with those things because they were lacking the Spirit within them (see on <em><a href='B:530 2:13'>1Co 2:13</a></em>). The language here and in <em><a href='B:650 5:12-14'>Heb 5:12-14</a></em> surely alludes to <em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>, although it doesn’t verbally quote it: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”. "Able" is&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>, they were not of power to receive Spiritual things; and chapter 1 has laboured the point that&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;comes from the Spirit of Christ received at baptism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you are still carnal. For whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are you not carnal and do you not walk after the manner of men?-&nbsp;</em>Paul can confidently conclude that they are not Spiritual, and therefore still carnal, because there is no evidence of the fruits of the Spirit. Jealousy, strife and division are the works of the flesh and advertise a lack of the Spirit within (<em><a href='B:550 5:20'>Gal 5:20</a></em>):We are not to judge others in the sense of condemning them; butlike Paul here, we canquite simply observe whether someone has the Spirit by whether they manifest the fruits of the Spirit:We may find that those who differ from us in some areas of Biblical interpretation clearly have the Spirit; and others who share our theology may be Spirit-less. Note that&nbsp;<em>"</em>strife" here translates<em>&nbsp;eris</em>, from whence 'heresy'. The real heresy is division between believers; and yet it is the fear of heresy which so often creates divisions:Paul could have chosen various indicators of the lack of the Spirit amongst the Corinthians; but he chooses the strife and division amongst them as the clearest example of it on a group level. For the joint possession of the Spirit creates unity- the unity of the Spirit. Where this is lacking on a collective level, it is clear that generally, as a community, the Spirit is lacking. This is not to say there were not individuals in Corinth who had the Spirit. But the reasoning here is forceful- any divided church, denomination or community is evidence that on a general, collective level, they are carnal and not Spirit filled.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:4'>1Co 3:4</a></em><em>&nbsp;For when one says: I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos- are you not mere men?-&nbsp;</em>They were "men" rather than being 'spirit' on a collective level; see on :3. The division of the church into groups based around which teacher they preferred or who had baptized them was an evidence that the Spirit received at baptism had not been allowed to dwell within them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:5'>1Co 3:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who then is Apollos? And who is Paul? Ministers through whom you believed, and each as the Lord gave to him-&nbsp;</em>A Christ centred approach makes the person who preached to us a mere instrument, a servant / minister used by the Lord to bring about faith. "Each as the Lord gave to him" could refer to the way that Paul and Apollos were simply fulfilling the ministries given to them by the Lord; but the context is of faith and how one comes to belief. So the reference may rather be to the fact that each of them had believed as a result of the Lord's gift / grace. This was to be paramount in their thinking; the human instruments used in the process were of utterly no account.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:6'>1Co 3:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase-&nbsp;</em>The "increase" in the context is their faith; hence Paul later writes of "when your faith is increased" (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>). Faith is a gift from God. This metaphor would have stopped at the planting and watering if the Gospel alone was enough to provoke faith. Paul later explains how that in his preaching he laid the foundation of the Gospel of Christ, but other brethren were building on it, as here in this earlier parable he speaks of his planting the seed of the Gospel and Apollos watering it. He warned these 'builder' brethren to "take heed how he buildeth thereupon", because "every man's work (cp. "ye are my work in the Lord", <em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>) shall be made manifest: for the day (of judgment) shall declare it... the fire of judgment shall try every man's work, of what sort it is... gold, silver... wood, hay, stubble... if any man's work abide which he hath built... he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" (<em><a href='B:530 3:6-15'>1Co 3:6-15</a></em>). This clearly teaches that successful building up of brethren will have its specific reward at the judgment; and that to some degree their rejection will be a result of our lack of zeal, and we will thus lose the extra reward which we could have had for the work of upbuilding. No doubt if the brethren we have laboured hard with to help, are with us in the Kingdom, this will greatly increase our joy- as compared to the brother who has not had such intense fellowship with his brethren during this life, and whose close friends in the ecclesia have been rejected, he himself only barely passing through the fire of judgment himself ("Yet so as by fire").</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:7'>1Co 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then neither is he that plants anything, neither he that waters, but God that gives the increase</em>- The channels by which God works are not themselves the source of faith. In chapter 1, Paul has tackled the fact that the Corinthians were divided into camps based around various teachers or baptizers. What's significant is that the individuals being so fiercely followed (Paul, Peter and Apollos) did not themselves want that following. And this kind of thing has repeated itself in church history. People want a human leader, a badge to wear, a human identity- and so they will chose persons and even systems which do not want to be treated in that way, but all the same, those people are made to fit the very human needs of the people.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now he that plants and he that waters are one, but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour</em>- Despite having said that in terms of giving faith and salvation, the channels are nothing- Paul is clear that those who do this work will be rewarded. The planter and waterer are "one" in that they are both being used by God, but they shall individually receive a reward for their work. Whilst salvation is by grace and not according to works, it is also true that the nature of our eternity will be a reflection of our works in this life. And the judgment process will reflect that; one will reign over five cities, another over 10 cities; just as one star differs from another in glory.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 15:26'>Rom 15:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>For we are God’s fellow-workers-&nbsp;</em>We are co-workers with Him in the building up of His house (<em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>). He could save men directly; but instead He has delegated that work to us, and thereby limited His power to save insofar as it depends upon our extension of it. Only through our preaching can the work of the cross be made complete- and that thought is frightening. God is building up His house, His ecclesia. But because we manifest God, we too are "labourers together with Him", not just puppets in His hand; we too are the builders of His house (<em><a href='B:530 3:9-13'>1Co 3:9-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>). The contrast between "we" and "you" has been noted earlier- the "we" surely refers to Paul and Silas.</p><p><em>You are God’s husbandry, God’s building</em>- "Husbandry" is literally 'farm'. The same word is used of how previously, Israel had been God’s farm (<em><a href='B:470 21:33-38'>Mat 21:33-38</a></em>); but now the likes of the Gentile Corinthians were that farm. But they appeared to be likewise yielding no spiritual fruit, despite all the work being done for them. We note that the Father is the husbandman (<em><a href='B:500 15:1'>Joh 15:1</a></em>); and yet in another sense, we are the husbandmen. He is working with us through every effort made to promote spiritual fruit in His people. We are labourers together with none less that God Himself whenever we do anything to build up others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder-&nbsp;</em>The gift "grace" of God, the Spirit gift, was Paul's 'wisdom'. For he has explained in chapter 1 that spiritual wisdom is a Spirit gift from God.</p><p><em>I laid a foundation, and another builds upon it</em>- The foundation was in converting unbelievers to the cross of Christ (:11). The rejected stone of Christ becomes the foundation stone "corner stone" for the faith of every individual and every true church. Paul saw himself as called to break new ground, to lay the foundation of Christian belief where it had not been laid before (<em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>); but he depended upon others to build upon it. This is in line with the terms of the great commission- to preach the simple news of the Lord's death and resurrection, to baptize people into it, and then afterwards to "teach them all things that I have commanded" (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>).</p><p><em>But let each man take care how he builds upon it</em>- The allusion is surely to the parable of the wise and foolish builders; for Paul has just claimed that he is a&nbsp;<em>wise</em>&nbsp;builder, laying a firm foundation. And the tension between wise and foolish is often played upon in these early chapters of 1Corinthians. His take on the parable is interesting, in that he seems to be arguing that it refers to the work we do in building up others, rather than in laying a personal foundation and building as it were our own house.</p><p>Paul’s reasoning in <em><a href='B:530 3:10-12'>1Co 3:10-12</a></em> is that “every man” will make a convert, and he should ensure they are firm in the faith, lest he lose them at judgment day. These assumptions of Paul reflect his positive way of thought, in a brotherhood that abounded in weakness and failure to live up to its potential. Likewise he writes of marriage as if marriage within the faith was and is the only model of marriage which he knows, even though there must have been many failures to live up to this ideal, as there are today. Paul seems to have assumed that all of us would preach and make converts (not leave it to just some of our community): he speaks of how "every man" in the ecclesia builds upon the foundation of Christ, but how he builds will be judged by fire. If what he has built is burnt up at the judgment, he himself will be saved, but not what he has built. I would suggest that the 'building' refers to our converts and work with other believers. If they fail of the Kingdom, we ourselves will be saved, but our work will have been in vain. This parable also suggests that the salvation of others, their passing through the fire at the judgment, is dependent upon how we build. This may be hyperbole to make a point, but it is a powerful encouragement that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;elders and preachers, and we&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;have a deep effect on others' spirituality. We have responsibilities to those who respond to our preaching.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ</em>- In chapters 1 and 2, Paul has explained that the foundation is Christ crucified; he determined to preach nothing other than that. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em> about the foundation of "faith toward God". Paul has explained that faith in God is predicated upon encounter with His crucified Son. And yet atheism was not popular in the first century Mediterranean world. The point is that in reality, we are not really believers in God unless we are believers in His Son; for the Son is the only way to the Father. Paul may be implying that some were seeking to claim to have laid some other foundation, disregarding the ground work Paul had done. The allusion to the parable of the wise and foolish builders suggests that the foundation is laid upon a rock- the Lord Jesus- rather than sand. This is the only valid building. And that rock is defined by the Lord Jesus as being Him and His words, believed and acted upon.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:12'>1Co 3:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble</em>- The builders upon the foundation of Paul's basic preaching work were those who then did the pastoral work of teaching all that the Lord has commanded (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). The materials they build with refer to the quality of those they build up. Gold, silver and precious stones can pass through the fire (:13)- the final test of judgment day. And these three figures are used elsewhere about the believers. The other corresponding three figures will be burnt up by the fire. Here we see the principle that the final acceptance of individuals is partly related to the quality of the teaching and caring work done for them by third parties. God has built this factor into the algorithm of our salvation in order that we may each one devote ourselves to caring for others spiritually, and so that likewise we may realize our own need for others' help in our own path to salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Each man's work shall be revealed. For the day of judgment shall declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire itself shall test each man's work of what sort it is</em>- The 'revelation' and 'declaration' will be public because in some unimaginable form, the judgment experience will be public. We shall each perceive the various factors in the final salvation and condemnation of each person. The judgment process will reveal openly the efforts made by others towards the salvation of others; the fire shall "test" our work with each other. And Paul writes not merely of himself and his preaching team, but of 'every man'; for we are each called to work in building others up against that day. The same word for "test" is used of how we can examine ourselves now at the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 11:28'>1Co 11:28</a></em>); for that meeting is, or can be, a foretaste of judgment day. We can 'test our own selves' ahead of that day (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp; Right now God is 'testing' our hearts (<em><a href='B:590 2:4'>1Th 2:4</a></em>); the judgment process will be a declaration for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;collective benefit of God’s present judgments. Peter seems to allude to Paul's ideas here when he writes that the faithful are as gold who pass through the fire right now, and are 'tested' with fire through present experience (<em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em> s:w:). Through our response to trial we therefore have a foretaste of judgment day.</p><p>At the point of conversion, the secrets of our hearts are in a sense made manifest (<em><a href='B:530 14:25'>1Co 14:25</a></em>); but secrets are made manifest in the last day (<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>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). The present judgments of God about us will be revealed at the judgment (<em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>). Our actions "treasure up" wrath or acceptance (<em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>). The materialistic believer heaps up treasure for judgment at the last day (<em><a href='B:660 5:3'>Jas 5:3</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 11:23'>Luk 11:23</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a></em> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation (<em><a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a></em>). Thus according to the allusion, Rahab and her family represent all the faithful.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:14'>1Co 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone's work shall endure which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward</em>- Our reward in the Kingdom will in some way be related to the work of upbuilding we have done with our brethren and sisters in this life. The "reward" which <em><a href='B:530 3:14'>1Co 3:14</a></em> speaks of is the "work" we have built in God’s ecclesia in this life. In agreement with this, Paul describes those he had laboured for as the reward he would receive in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:570 4:1'>Phi 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:19'>1Th 2:19</a></em>). Paul has in mind that the Corinthians were his "work in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>). He encourages all the Corinthians to likewise abound in this "work of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em>)- i:e. of building up each other. Paul has said in :8 that he is liable for "reward"- depending on the growth of the Corinthians.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire-&nbsp;</em>There is the implication in the New Testament that whoever lives the life of Christ will convert others to the Way. 1 Corinthians 3 speaks of the converts a man builds on the foundation of Christ. They, like himself, must go through the fire of judgment, and if they are lost, then he himself will still be saved (if he has remained faithful). The implication is that all of us build up others, and our work is tried in the end.</p><p>The accepted will be saved "yet so as by fire" (AV). The fire of condemnation will as it were burn at them and remove all their surface spirituality. And as through death comes life, so through condemnation of the flesh comes salvation of the spirit.</p><p>If we invest our lives in seeking to save others and they are burnt up at the day of judgment, then we will indeed experience loss. "Suffer loss" is a term elsewhere used about being "cast away" in rejection at the day of judgment, or 'losing' ones own soul there (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em>). This is not teaching that the preacher / teacher will be rejected, for we go on to read that he shall not be- "he himself shall be saved". It's that if we really care for people, then the loss of any man is my loss; we identify with those we love and care for. Hence the faithful of the Old Testament felt that they had sinned along with Israel, and Ezra blushed to lift up his face to God because of the sins of the Israel with whom he was associated (<em><a href='B:150 9:6'>Ezr 9:6</a></em>). As we see those they laboured for condemned and burnt up, we will feel it as if it were us. This is why Paul openly admits that he has a vested interest in the salvation of the Corinthians. We too cannot work with others in some dispassionate, at-a-distance manner, as if it were a mere 9-5 job we were doing. If those we served are indeed burnt up, it shall be as if we were, although we ourselves shall be saved. This I believe is the sense of the next sentence: "But he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?-&nbsp;</em>Paul began the chapter by saying that they were not spiritual (:1); and yet the Spirit dwelt in them. As explained earlier in these notes, the Spirit is given but this doesn't make us spiritual unless we allow that Spirit to take over our lives and allow it free movement. And this was what the Corinthians weren't doing; for they instead gave freedom of movement to their flesh. The "you" here is in the plural; the Spirit was dwelling amongst them as a community.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:17'>1Co 3:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone destroys the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy; and such are you</em>- Judaism was very touchy about the destruction or damaging of the temple in any way. And Paul transfers that language to these Gentile Corinthians. He began in chapter 1 by appealing for holiness, or sanctification, on a personal level. He reminded them that they had been sanctified, in status before God in Christ and by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. But they had to allow that to work out in practice instead of justifying the flesh. The damaging of the temple is being spoken of on a collective, plural level. The concern here is not so much with damaging ones own physical body, but with damaging the temple / church of God. The letter will continue to give examples of that- division, prostitution and immorality within the church, over eating and drinking at the breaking of bread, false teaching etc. Those who stop the community from being sanctified by advocating the flesh are therefore standing against the Holy Spirit, which is amongst the church and within the individual believers. This becomes a form of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:18'>1Co 3:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks that he is wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise</em>- At this stage in the letter, there was in view a particular damaging of the church, God’s temple. It was in the belief and teaching of human wisdom. For this stands opposed to the Spirit of God, as Paul has laboured from the start of the letter to this point. Paul is appealing here for a re-conversion- to 'foolishness', in the eyes of the world, by quitting human wisdom. The true wisdom was of the Spirit, which had already potentially been given to them. Chapter 1 has said that they are already enriched with all spiritual wisdom; they had to reject human wisdom, becoming 'foolish', in order to access it:&nbsp;</p><p>Job was the greatest of the men of the east (<em><a href='B:220 1:3'>Job 1:3</a></em>), people who were renowned in the ancient world for their wisdom (cp. <em><a href='B:470 2:1'>Mat 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:30'>1Ki 4:30</a></em>). Thus Job as the Jews would have been full of worldly wisdom, and this is maybe&nbsp; behind Paul's words of <em><a href='B:530 3:18-19'>1Co 3:18-19</a></em>: "If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written (quoting <em><a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a></em>, which is Eliphaz speaking about Job), He taketh the wise in their own craftiness". Job is equated with the false wisdom of the Judaizers, who were using "excellency of speech… wisdom... enticing words of man's wisdom" (<em><a href='B:530 2:1'>1Co 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:4'>1Co 2:4</a></em>), to corrupt the believers from the "simplicity that is in Christ", "as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:19'>1Co 3:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God-&nbsp;</em>Chapters 1 and 2 have defined the wisdom of God as the power of the crucified Christ. All else is foolishness with God. The whole structure of the argument and language used allows for no incorporation of worldly wisdom within Divine wisdom. Yet we in this age of all ages are so strongly tempted to proclaim a faith which appears intellectually and scientifically respectable:&nbsp;<br/><em><br/>For it is written: He takes the wise in their craftiness-&nbsp;</em>The impossibility of combining secular and Divine wisdom is underscored by this. The worldly wisdom of the wise is actually what stops them from believing; which is why Paul insisted on preaching the bald message of the crucified Christ with no words of secular wisdom attached to it. For faith would not then be elicited. The quotation from Eliphaz in <em><a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a></em> raises interesting questions as to the nature of Divine inspiration. The words of the friends are at times wrong, and God later says they are wrong. But here some of their words are quoted as being correct. The view that every single word we read in our translations of the Bible is ‘true’ can lead us into the problems evident in many Bible fundamentalists. Take the words of Eliphaz against Job (<em><a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a></em>). They were wrong words (<em><a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a></em>). Yet they are quoted in <em><a href='B:530 3:19'>1Co 3:19</a></em>. Wrong statements can still be recorded under inspiration and even quoted. Take the mocking of Sennacherib. It’s recorded under inspiration, blasphemous as it was.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:20'>1Co 3:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And again: The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are vain</em>- The vanity of secular reasoning is that it is vain in terms of bringing a person to faith. For true faith is predicated, as Paul has explained, upon encounter with Christ. The quotation from <em><a href='B:230 94:11'>Psa 94:11</a></em> is changed, under inspiration; "men" becomes "the wise" to fit the context of Paul's argument. But it could be argued that secular man is to be identified with secular wisdom. The obsession of our age with education and learning makes these issues poignant. The context of Psalms 94 is a pleading with the faithful in Israel not to adopt the philosophy and belief system of their oppressors. And this is pertinent to Christians- mixing the truth of Christ with secular wisdom is the same error. And the wisdom of the world is thus presented most negatively.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:21'>1Co 3:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, let no one boast in men. For all things are yours</em>- The boasting in men may refer to boasting in human teachers and their words of human wisdom. But these "men" are defined in :22 as Paul, Apollos and Peter. In chapter 1, Paul laments how the church has split into factions around these men. So he is here repeating the basic point made there- the cross of Christ is the fundamental basis of faith. Anything else added to it is mere human thinking. To start talking about perceived differences between those three Christian leaders was just the same as worldly wisdom. And surely none of those three men in themselves approved of the divisions being made around them. The "all things" in view are those of <em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>; the gift of the Spirit had given them "all things" in the Spiritual sphere. Again the appeal is to realize what they have potentially been given by the gift of the Spirit. To start talking about the superiority of Paul's teaching over Peter's was a sign that they failed to be awed as they should by the "all things" given them in Christ. The spirit of Christ gave them the "all things, yes, the deep things of God" (<em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>). Through the Spirit, God was working all things in all men in the church (<em><a href='B:530 12:6'>1Co 12:6</a></em>) and will articulate this 'all things in all men' at the final change to immortality (<em><a href='B:530 15:28'>1Co 15:28</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come- all are yours</em>- If literally all things have been made possible by the Spirit, then there is no need to argue about who baptized us, or the different nuances of teaching between church leaders. These things pale into utter insignificance compared to the all things made possible for us right now. "All are yours" suggests that there was the idea that by having a certain baptism or having some supposed superior teaching of secular wisdom, they possessed more than their fellows. This kind of petty arrogance can so often be seen. Yet once the immensity of having "all things" is perceived, then such a mentality disappears.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:23'>1Co 3:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And you are Christ's, and Christ is God’s</em>- Another nail in the coffin for Trinitarian views of Jesus being equal to God. If we feel we are Christ's, that we belong solely to Him, and through Him we are therefore also God’s... then we shall not feel any allegiance to mere man. No human leader, even within the church, can have our allegiance, nor should we even seek to give allegiance if we are wholly Christ's. Yet there is a tendency in us all, as there was in the Corinthians, to be someone's; someone whom we know, who is visible on this earth. And that in the end is why there are so many denominations and followers of people. The extent of Christ's Lordship ought to drive this from us.</p><p>If we believe that all in Christ, all who are ‘Christian’, will be in the Kingdom… then, we will act joyfully and positively toward our community, abounding in hope. We have to assume that our brethren are likewise going to be there; for we cannot condemn them. Therefore we must assume they too will be saved along with us. Consider how Paul repeatedly has this attitude when dealing with his apostate&nbsp;Corinthians: “For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s” (<em><a href='B:530 3:21-23'>1Co 3:21-23</a></em>). See too <em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:17'>1Co 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:57'>1Co 15:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:7'>2Co 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let a man regard us as servants of Christ-&nbsp;</em>Paul now begins to justify himself against criticism and gossip, and to lay the basis for his authority in appealing to the Corinthians regarding their serious misbehaviour and wrong teaching. Clearly some did not regard him and his team as "servants of Christ". The word for "servant" is that used by the Lord on the Damascus road in giving Paul authority to do the work he did: "I have appeared unto you... to make you a servant and witness of these things which you have seen" (<em><a href='B:510 26:16'>Act 26:16</a></em>). The word&nbsp;<em>huperetes</em>&nbsp;is literally an 'under oarsman'. He was rowing, but the Lord Jesus was the captain directing the ship; and Paul was 'under' Him. He plays on this idea in <em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em> where he reasons that therefore it means nothing to him to be&nbsp;<em>hupo</em>&nbsp;man's judgment; for he is in fact&nbsp;<em>hupo</em>&nbsp;or 'under' the Lord's mastership. This is a liberating principle, and it flows directly from the apparently painless statement that Jesus is Lord and Master. If we are indeed 'under' Him, then we will not allow men to put us down, to make us 'under' their judgment. Their words and judgments will mean the less, indeed, nothing at all. For we are not 'under' them but the Lord.</p><p><em>And stewards of the mysteries of God-&nbsp;</em>"Stewards" continues the idea of a 'servant' being 'under' a master. For a 'steward' was a slave within a household who managed day to day affairs. The goods in view were God’s mysteries- and not Paul's own. I noted earlier that the Gospel of Christ was only a mystery to those who shut their eyes from understanding it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>In this, moreover, it is required of stewards, that a man be found faithful</em>- The same word is used in the parable of the unjust steward in <em><a href='B:490 16:1-8'>Luk 16:1-8</a></em>. But the point was that the steward was found faithful or otherwise by his own master- and not by the gossip of other servants. And Paul goes on to develop this point.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or any man's judgment. I do not judge even myself</em>- Our being servants&nbsp;<em>under</em>&nbsp;the Lord Jesus, accountable to&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, means that we are not 'under' any human judgment; see on :1&nbsp;<em>Servants of Christ</em>. This means that quite literally any human judgment of us, whether by our critics in the church or even by our own self in our personal self-assessment, is utterly irrelevant. And yet so many beat themselves up all their lives over the fact that he said that, she thinks that about me, they judged me like this or that. If we are solely and completely under the Lord's judgment, then their view and our own view of ourselves, whether too harsh or too generous is irrelevant.</p><p>For Paul, the fact that he had only&nbsp;<em>one&nbsp;</em>judge meant that he could genuinely feel that it mattered very little to him how others judged him. The idea of worrying only about God’s judgment of us rather than man's lies behind <em><a href='B:240 29:26'>Pro 29:26</a></em>: "Many seek the ruler's favourable judgment; but a man's judgment i:e. the ultimate judgment, the only one worth having comes from the Lord". But this takes quite some faith to believe- for in this age of constant communication between people about other people, we all tend to get worried by others' judgments and opinions of us. But ultimately there is only&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;judge- God, and not the guys at work, your kid sister, your older brother, the woman in apartment 35. The idea of the court of Heaven is a great comfort to us in the pain of being misjudged by men. It's a case of seeing what isn't visible to the human eye.</p><p>Paul’s thought here is building on what he had earlier reasoned in <em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>, that the spiritual man “himself is judged of no man”. There was only One judge, and the believer is now not condemned if he is in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em>). He that truly believes in Christ is not condemned, but has passed from death to life (<em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em>). So however men may claim to judge and condemn us, the ultimate truth is that no man&nbsp;<em>can&nbsp;</em>judge / condemn us, and we who are spiritual should live life like that, not fearing the pathetic judgments of men, knowing that effectively we are&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;being judged by them. How radically different is Paul’s attitude to so many of us. The fear of criticism and human judgment leads us to respond as animals do to fear- the instinct of self-defence and self-preservation is aroused. We defend ourselves as we would against hunger or impending death. Yet here the radical implications of grace burst through:&nbsp;<em>We</em>&nbsp;are not our best defence. We have an advocate who is also the judge, the almighty Lord Jesus; we have a preserver and saviour, the same omnipotent Lord, so that we need not and must not trust in ourselves. By not trusting in this grace of salvation, we end up desperately trusting ourselves for justification and preservation and salvation, becoming ever more guilty at our abysmal and pathetic failures to save and defend ourselves.</p><p>The message of imputed righteousness was powerfully challenging. For the whole message of Romans is that our only acceptability is through&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;counting us righteous although we are not... and it is&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;judgment which matters, not that of the million watching eyes of society around us. <em><a href='B:530 4:3-5'>1Co 4:3-5</a></em> teach that the judgment of others is a "very small thing", an irrelevancy, compared with Christ's judgment of us. The fact that we have only one judge means that whatever others think or judge of us is irrelevant. That may be easy enough to accept as a theory, but the reality for those living in collective societies was far-reaching. Appreciating the ultimate importance of our standing before&nbsp;<em>God&nbsp;</em>means that we have a conscience towards&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, and a rightful sense of shame before Him for our sins.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I know nothing against myself in my own conscience. Yet hereby I am not justified; but he that judges me is the Lord-&nbsp;</em>As explained in the previous verses, Paul was under the Lordship of Jesus as his master. Only His judgment therefore was of any meaning; even if his own conscience were clear, this would not justify him. He parallels his justification with his judgment; the Lord's present and final judgment will be our justification by His imputed righteousness. And so a comparison related to time is also introduced; whether we feel justified by our own self assessment now is nothing compared to His justification of us then. This idea is continued in the next verse- "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come".<em><br/></em><br/>Paul says that although he does not feel he has done anything wrong, this does not of itself mean that he is justified in God’s sight. We cannot, therefore, place too much importance on living according to our natural sense of right and wrong. "It's OK in my conscience" is the only justification for many. They give more credibility to what they perceive to be guidance coming from within them, than to God’s word of Truth. The words of the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:490 11:35'>Luk 11:35</a></em> seem especially relevant: "Take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness. "It's OK in my conscience" is indeed dark light. Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>), not how far we have lived according to our conscience.<br/>“He that judges me is the Lord” alludes to “Yet surely my judgment is with the Lord” (<em><a href='B:290 49:4'>Isa 49:4</a></em>). This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 4:3-5'>1Co 4:3-5</a></em> appeals to the reality of&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;future judgment as a basis for not paying too much attention to how&nbsp;<em>man&nbsp;</em>judges us. If it is&nbsp;<em>God’s</em>&nbsp;judgment that means everything to us, what men say or think about us, or what we perceive they do, will not weigh so heavily with us. The ultimate reality of our lives is the sense of God’s future judgment, not the awareness of man's present judgment. If we really grasp the simple fact that God alone is judge, that there is only One who&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;judge us, that Christ will come, then we will say with Paul from our hearts: “He that is spiritual… himself is judged of no man” (<em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>). Of course, men&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;judge us; and it hurts. But we are to act and feel according to the fact that ultimately, they can&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;judge us. For there is only One judge, to whom we shall all soon give account.</p><p>Paul, misrepresented and slandered more than most brethren, came to conclude: "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me right now is the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 4:3-4'>1Co 4:3-4</a></em>). The judge is the justifier, according to this argument. Paul is not justified by himself or by other men, because they are not his judge. The fact that God alone is judge through Christ another first principle means that nobody can ultimately justify us or condemn us. "Many seek the favour of the ruler 'judge'; but every man's judgment cometh from the Lord" (<em><a href='B:240 29:26'>Pro 29:26</a></em>). The false claims of others can do nothing to ultimately damage us, and our own efforts at self-justification are in effect a denial of the fact that the Lord is the judge, not us, and therefore He alone can and will justify.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come</em>- Any feeling OK in our own conscience&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;is irrelevant compared to the fact that the final judgment is not&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;but&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;when the Lord comes. The appeal to judge nothing before that time is directed very much at ourselves in our self judgment, rather than warning against judging others. We are not to judge, not simply because it is beyond our competence, but because&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;is not the time to judge.</p><p><em>Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts</em>- Judgment of others is impossible because we cannot see the hearts of others, nor can we see in darkness. There is an element to which judgment will be public; and hidden things will be made manifest not only to those being judged, but to all of us. The real intentions of others will then be known by us all. And this is necessary to prepare us to live eternally together. The judgment process in that sense is for our benefit and education, rather than because God needs it in order to gather information. The same word for "bring to light" is used of how we can now live 'in the light', with our whole body as it were full of light and having no dark parts (<em><a href='B:490 11:36'>Luk 11:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em>). This is the whole sense of our having been 'enlightened' (<em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em> s:w:).</p><p>We can live in the spirit of judgment day right now, if we allow the Lord's light to operate as intended. He will reveal the hidden things of darkness (the human heart), and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). Of course He knows these anyway; but He will make them manifest&nbsp;<em>to us</em>. The judgment seat is for our benefit, not God’s- He knows our lives and spiritual position already. The day of judgment is to purify us (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>)- not ultimately, for that has been done by the Lord's blood and our lives of faithful acceptance of this. But the fire of judgment reveals the dross of our lives&nbsp;<em>to us</em>&nbsp;and in this sense purges us of those sins. Without the judgment, we would drift into the Kingdom with no real appreciation of our own sinfulness or the height of God’s grace. The judgment will declare God’s glory, His triumph over every secret sin of His people. The heathen will be judged "that the nations may know themselves to be but men" (<em><a href='B:230 9:20'>Psa 9:20</a></em>)- self knowledge is the aim, not extraction of information so that God can make a decision. And it was the same with Israel: "Judge the bloody city... (i:e:) shew her all her abominations" (<em><a href='B:330 22:2'>Eze 22:2</a></em>).</p><p>At judgment God "shall bring forth thy righteousness (good deeds) as the light, and thy judgment as the noon day" (<em><a href='B:230 37:6'>Psa 37:6</a></em>). The sins of the rejected and the good deeds of the righteous will be publicly declared at the judgment, even if they are concealed from men in this life (<em><a href='B:610 5:24-25'>1Ti 5:24-25</a></em>). This is how men will receive "praise of God" (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>). The wicked will see the generous deeds of the righteous rehearsed before them; and will gnash their teeth and melt away into condemnation (<em><a href='B:230 112:9-10'>Psa 112:9-10</a></em>).</p><p><em>And then shall each man have his praise from God-&nbsp;</em>The praise, in the context, would be for the counsels of their hearts. This is exactly the sense of <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>, where the same word is used: "He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God". This is how critically important it is to be spiritually minded; this is the essence which the Father looks at. And yet "praise of God" at the judgment recalls the Lord's parable of how we shall be praised in that day for having fed, clothed and visited the suffering Lord Jesus in the form of the least of His brethren. With such an awesome prospect ahead, we will not be interested in being judged positively by men; and neither will their negative judgment of us mean anything much.</p><p>Whilst we ourselves will feel the need to "confess to God" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>) our failures and unworthiness, we have shown earlier how our Lord will not mention these to us, but instead joyfully catalogue to us those things which have so pleased him in our lives. This will be to our genuine amazement: "Lord, when::?". Keeping a subconscious inventory of our own good works now will surely prevent us from being in this category. <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em> speaks of us as receiving "praise of God" at the judgment, presumably in the form of praise for the good works which we are not aware of, as outlined in the parable (cp. <em><a href='B:230 134:3'>Psa 134:3</a></em>). "Praise" suggests that our Lord will show quite some enthusiasm in this. Not he that commends himself will be approved cp. The listing of good deeds by the rejected, "but whom the Lord commendeth" in as it were listing the good deeds of the accepted (<em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>).</p><p>There are some instructive parallels here:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>"Bring to light"</td><td>"Make manifest"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"The hidden things of"</td><td>"The counsels of"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Darkness"</td><td>"The hearts"</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The hidden man is therefore "the counsels" of the heart. How we speak and reason to ourselves in our self-talk, this is the indicator of the hidden man. This will be 'made manifest' to the owners of those hearts, the Greek implies. "All things are naked and opened" unto God anyway; the second coming will reveal nothing to Him. The making manifest of our hidden man will be to ourselves and to others. The purpose of the judgment seat is therefore more for our benefit than God’s; it will be the ultimate self-revelation of ourselves. Then we will know ourselves, just as God knows us (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>). Through a glass, darkly, we can now see the outline of our spiritual self (<em><a href='B:530 13:11-12'>1Co 13:11-12</a></em>), although all too often we see this picture in the spiritual mirror of self-examination, and then promptly forget about it (<em><a href='B:660 1:23-24'>Jas 1:23-24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:6'>1Co 4:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now these things, brothers, I have applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes</em>- The letter opened with a lament that the church had split into factions, after Paul and Apollos. Presumably the reference here is to the mention he has made of Apollos and himself a few verses earlier in <em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em>: "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours". He may mean that he has addressed the issue of following men by quoting Apollos and himself as examples of those who were being followed- even though they themselves did not want it. The implication might be that there were others whom he could name but didn’t wish to, "for your sakes".</p><p><em>That from us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written</em>- The example of Paul and Apollos was of being leaders who did not want a personal cult following. The presence of the article "the" after "learn" requires us to read this as: "That you might learn the 'Not beyond the things which are written'". "Written" translates&nbsp;<em>grapho</em>, the writings, or, the Scriptures. 'Not beyond the writings' was a Rabbinic expression, and Paul is saying that the Corinthians would see it exemplified in the demeanour of Apollos and himself. The Corinthians were to learn from their example not to go beyond respect of leaders and fall into cult following. 'The things written' would in this context therefore refer to things written against following leaders into a cult situation; and that is what Paul has been writing about so far in the letter. The things written which must not be 'gone beyond', just as the Rabbis were not supposed to 'go beyond the inspired writings', would therefore refer to what Paul has just written under inspiration. So whilst turning down any personal cult following, he is also making clear that what he is writing is inspired and should be treated with as much respect as the OT Scriptures.</p><p><em>So that none of you get puffed up, one against the other-&nbsp;</em>As noted earlier on this verse, the inspired message so far given was to stop such following of leaders in a divisive, cult-like sense. 1Corinthians contains many warnings against being "puffed up" (<em><a href='B:530 4:6'>1Co 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:8'>1Co 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:19'>1Co 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:6'>1Co 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:4'>1Co 13:4</a></em>). These warnings often come in the context of statements about the Lordship of Jesus, or about the sacrifice of Jesus, the Passover lamb. The fact He is our Lord and died as He did means that we must live Passover lives without the leaven of pride and being puffed up about leading brethren etc. Perceiving&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>greatness will mean that we will not seek to follow men.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:7'>1Co 4:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?-&nbsp;</em>Their differences were made by themselves; the differences were in their following of different leaders. What was 'received' by the Corinthians was the free gift of the Spirit (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>). "Boast" translates a Greek word Paul has used in speaking of how we should glory in the Lord and not glory or boast in human leaders (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:31'>1Co 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:21'>1Co 3:21</a></em>). This boasting would only be made by those who did not have the Spirit; for such boasting is of the flesh and not the Spirit. We noted earlier that the Corinthians had been given the Spirit, and yet they acted as if they didn’t have it. Their boasting was done as if they had not received the Spirit. Instead, their lives should have been wholly Spiritual, taken up with the things of the Spirit; so that it would be true that they had nothing in life apart from what they had been given by the Spirit and accepted from the Spirit. And this would utterly preclude boasting in mere men and their human words and examples. Yet the Corinthians had not made use of the Spirit gifts given them, as made clear in chapters 1 and 2; see on <em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:8'>1Co 4:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Already are you filled, already you have become rich, you have come to reign without us</em>- The ideas of filling and being enriched were used in chapter 1 with reference to how the Corinthians had been filled with the Spirit, but had not made use of it. I suggested on :7 that what was 'received' was the Spirit. Here in :8 Paul is using sarcasm, which was more acceptable to use as a literary figure than it currently is in our times. They considered themselves wealthy, reigning and with no hunger or lack of anything. Paul is saying that they are indeed like this spiritually, if only they would know it; but their arrogant boasting was "without us", i:e. without the support of Paul and Apollos and Paul's team.</p><p><em>Yes, and I hope that you will indeed reign, that we also might reign with you-</em>&nbsp;Paul's thought is of the 'reigning' in God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em> etc:). He sees his future reward as related to whether or not they his converts enter God’s Kingdom. He has earlier developed this thought in <em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:20 7:4'>Exo 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:28'>1Co 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I think God has sent us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death. For we are made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men-&nbsp;</em>The Roman spectacles included men doomed to death who were made to fight as gladiators to the death, either against each other or wild animals. The "last of all" compares with the idea of the Corinthians wanting to be 'first' (:8). Paul is saying that apostles like him were hardly worth following in a cultic sense; for they were indeed on the stage in front of all men, but were set to die a sad death, in shame and rejection. It would seem from <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 1:10'>2Co 1:10</a></em> that Paul was indeed thrown to the lions at Ephesus but was miraculously delivered. With typical spiritual culture, Paul only alludes to the incident indirectly, and in order to make points for the edification of others. Remember that Paul wrote this first letter from Ephesus. See on :11.</p><p>There is a sense in which the Angels have limited knowledge about our spiritual capacities; "We are made a spectacle... to Angels"&nbsp; implies that the Angels look on at the sufferings God has brought on us through our guardian Angel, and intensely scrutinize how we are acting as if earnestly watching a theatre play (so the word "spectacle" implies). Thus they are anxiously looking for the outcome of their trials on us, not knowing the final result. The fact that only at the judgement will the names of the worthy be confessed to the Angels by Jesus (<em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>) makes it appear that the ultimate outcome of our probations is not known to our guardians, hence their eagerness in our lives to see how we react. It is not until the harvest that they are sent out to root out of the Kingdom all things that offend (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>).</p>


