# commentaries

text:
<p><em>And more than forty persons participated in this conspiracy</em>-</p><p> These men would have been motivated by the account given them by the Sadducees of the words said in court that day. Josephus mentions that ten Jews made a similar vow in attempting to murder Herod. But forty of them did so to kill Paul, such was the power of a bad conscience and religious fanaticism. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they came to the chief priests and the elders, and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse, to taste nothing until we have killed Paul</em>-</p><p> Such vows unto death could be lifted by the elders, according to the Talmud. They clearly intended to kill Paul quickly. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now then, you with the council petition the chief captain to bring him down to you, as though you would judge his case more exactly; and we, before he comes near, will be ready to slay him</em>-</p><p> Knowing that he would be under guard, they were willing to give their lives to end Paul's life. This is how deeply the power of jealousy can work, especially when religious conscience has been touched. The fanaticism of some Christians today to eliminate false teachers [as they perceive them] is in the same spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul's sister's son heard of their ambush, and he went and entered into the fortress and told Paul</em>-</p><p> The ambush plan was surely kept as secret as possible. We can therefore assume that this young man was close to the Pharisees, seeing Paul was from a Pharisee family. He would have been involved enough with them to be party to this top secret knowledge, so we can assume he was not a publicly committed Christian. But still he played a part in saving Paul's life. He was presumably known as Paul's relative seeing he was allowed access to Paul. Perhaps this boy like Paul had been sent from Tarsus to be schooled in Pharisaic Judaism in Jerusalem, and due to mixing in those extreme circles he had heard of the plot.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul summoned one of the centurions, and said: Take this young man to the chief captain; for he has something to tell him</em>-</p><p> "Young man" is vague, but from the way the captain took his hand (:19) we could assume he was quite young, a boy. Paul had been assured that his life would be preserved (:11); but he still did what was humanly prudent to save his life at this point. We note again how the Lord works through weak human mechanisms in order to work out His saving purpose; just as the boy who provided the loaves and fishes was necessary for the great miracle to be performed.</p>


text:
<p><em>So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said: Paul the prisoner summoned me, and asked me to bring this young man, who has something to say to you</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the rather simplistic, almost childish title "Paul the prisoner" stuck in Paul's mind, for he uses about himself with pride in his later letters (<em><a href='B:560 3:1'>Eph 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:1'>Eph 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:7'>Phi 1:7</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And the chief captain took him by the hand, and taking him aside asked him privately: What is it you have to tell me?</em>-</p><p> As suggested on :17, the taking by the hand would suggest the young man was no more than a boy. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said: The Jews have agreed to ask that you bring Paul down to the council tomorrow, as though they were going to inquire more fully about him</em>-</p><p> We have read earlier in this chapter of how "the Jews" were bitterly divided over the case of Paul. Perhaps the idea is that they had now agreed amongst themselves, all convinced that for whatever reason and regardless of theological issues, Paul had to be killed. </p>


text:
<p><em>But do not yield to them, for more than forty of them lie in wait for him, men who have bound themselves by an oath that they will neither eat nor drink until they have killed him; and now they are ready, waiting for your consent to their request</em>-</p><p> The forty men who had made the oath had now grown to "more than forty". Extremism is contagious. We ought to harness that in a positive sense; for our commitment to the Lord and His principles is a form of extremism in our postmodern world. And it ought to influence our brethren likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>So the chief captain let the young man go, ordering him: Tell no one you have told these things to me</em>-</p><p> We get the impression that the captain really wanted to help Paul. Perhaps he was sorry for him, realizing that Paul was basically innocent but was being hounded to death by an irrational group of people who were simply jealous. Or it could be that he was another closet Christian, or with sympathies that way. We can construct a positive picture of Paul's persistently good treatment at the hands of many of his guards and imprisoners, with the exception of the special case at Philippi. Somehow God worked through all the negatives in order to reveal His own gentleness and care for His suffering servant. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he summoned two of the centurions and said: Make ready two hundred soldiers to go as far as Caesarea, and seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen, at the third hour of the night</em>-</p><p> At least 470 soldiers on horseback ("spearmen" = 'cavalry'), were needed to protect Paul from 40 bitter maniacs. It was the sudden movement at 9 PM that night which was effective in resolving the situation; for the Jews were awaiting a response in the morning regarding their request to have another meeting with Paul. They were no expecting him to be moved that evening:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Felix the governor</em>-</p><p> By sending Paul to Felix, the captain was washing his own hands of the problem. Felix was renowned for brutality and according to Tacitus "governed with all the authority of a king, and the baseness and insolence of a slave". </p>


text:
<p><em>And he wrote a letter after this form</em>-</p><p> We wonder from where Luke got the text of the letter. It could of course have been given to him by a flash of direct inspiration from God; but as conjectured earlier, it might have been that the captain was sympathetic to Paul and later shared a copy of the letter. </p>


text:
<p><em>Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix, greetings</em>-</p><p> The letter was presumably written in Latin, but we read it here in Greek. "Claudius" was his Roman name, taken on obtaining his citizenship; "Lysias" is a Greek name, so perhaps he was originally from Greece. </p>


text:
<p><em>This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be slain by them, when I intervened with soldiers and rescued him, having learnt that he was a Roman</em>-</p><p> Lysias omits to mention that he had almost scourged Paul. He only learnt that Paul was a Roman citizen after rescuing him; so we see Lysias wishing to portray himself as having behaved with an integrity which was not in fact the case. The motive for rescuing him was presumably because he didn't want a riot in Jerusalem which could easily arise after a lynching. </p>


text:
<p><em>And desiring to know the cause why they accused him, I brought him down to their council</em>-</p><p> As noted on 22:30, Lysias was genuinely at a loss as to why the Jews were so vehemently against Paul. Lysias could have asked Paul's side of the story and left it at that, but he obviously thought that under examination by the Jews, some more reasons might emerge. But they didn't- it was the power of a bad conscience, people who subconsciously know that the greatest truth is on the side of another, and who therefore seek to persecute them with untellable rage because of it.</p>


text:
<p><em>I found him to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or imprisonment</em>-</p><p> The accusation was that he had brought Gentiles into the temple. This was a capital offence. But they had not specifically accused him of that before the Romans; and so Lysias wrote that he had not even been accused of anything that carried the death penalty. The questions of the Jewish law were questions of interpretation of it, with Paul arguing that it pointed forward to the Lord Jesus and the Jews forced to deny it... with their denial making the predictions of Messiah the more true.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when it was told that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you, ordering his accusers also to speak against him before you</em>-</p><p> Lysias avoids saying that <em>he</em> personally was told, ever seeking to avoid responsibility. </p>


text:
<p><em>So the soldiers, as commanded, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris</em>-</p><p> The 35 mile journey from Jerusalem, if started at 9 or 10 p:m. (:23), would have taken all night by horseback. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the next day they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the fortress</em>-</p><p> As noted on :31, they would have arrived at Antipatris in the morning. But Caesarea was another 26 miles from Antipatris, although the road was through flat plains, whereas from Jerusalem to Antipatris was through rocky territory ideal for an ambush. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they, when they came to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, presented Paul also before him</em>-</p><p> The 26 mile journey from Antipatris to Caesarea would have taken several hours by horseback, and Paul had been travelling all the previous night on horseback. He may not have been accustomed to horseback travel and would have arrived sore and exhausted, in addition to the traumas he had suffered in recent days from those who had got close to killing him by beating. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had read it, he asked of what province he was; and when he understood that he was of Cilicia, he said</em>-</p><p> "What province" could mean 'what kind of province', i:e. whether senatorial or imperial. Cilicia was an imperial province, attached to the province of Syria. So Felix realized that he had a duty to hear the case. </p>


text:
<p><em>I will hear you fully when your accusers also have come; and he commanded him to be kept in Herod's palace</em>-</p><p> The Romans required the accusers to face the accused in person. The <em>praetorium</em> referred to the guardroom attached to Herod's palace.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and a spokesman, one Tertullus; and these gave evidence to the governor against Paul</em>-</p><p> These strict Jews hired a Gentile orator to help make their case. We will note on :2 that he uses language and approaches which no Jew should use. But these Jews, who would not even eat with gentiles and condemned those who did, sacrificed their own religious principles for the sake of destroying someone who threatened those principles. The same contradictions can be seen in the behaviour of all manner of religious extremists [including Christians]. If principles are taught by God Himself and His word, then these are to be abided by; the end [of defending them] cannot justify breaking them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: Seeing that by you we enjoy much peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight</em>-</p><p> Tertullus follows the standard pattern of such a speech, beginning by praising the judge, as Paul does. The reference to peace was because Felix had succeeded in ending the fighting between Syrians and Jews in Caesarea, and had greatly reduced the brigand bands who roamed the countryside. "Foresight" is really "providence" (as AV); and alludes to how Caesar and his officials were seen as the source of providence within the imperial cult. Roman coins often carried the slogan <em>Providentia Caesar</em>. But God is the source of providence for His people. So to say this ought to have been unthinkable for a true Jew. But the Jews used Tertullus and were happy to give up their scruples for the sake of trying to get Roman power on their side in order to destroy Paul, Yahweh's servant. This is typical of how religious people can so easily forget and contradict the most elemental principles of their religion because of hate obsessions against those who have tweaked their consciences. </p>


text:
<p><em>We accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness</em>-</p><p> The historical records of Felix, especially those of Tacitus, portray him as very far from "excellent". Such flattery is tedious, and :4 is almost worded so as to give the impression that Tertullus himself knew he was being tedious. </p>


text:
<p><em>But, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us</em>-</p><p> The Greek for "courtesy" means kindness / fairness / mildness. The historical Felix was anything but any of these. Paul also opens his speech with the traditional praise of the judge, but he is far more realistic and honest. And it was that which contributed to Paul making Felix tremble.</p>


text:
<p><em>For we have found this man to be a plague, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes</em>-</p><p> Paul was known throughout the Roman world; so the claim of the Roman Jews to have not heard of him was either untrue or meant that they did not recognize Paul. "Sect" has connotations of division; they were accusing Paul of being a sociopathic destroyer of their religion because he was causing division. And every shade of politics, every dictator, every stamp collectors club and religious denomination... have had this reasoning. The most awful abuse of a person who differs is justified on the basis of maintaining unity. Anyone who thinks out of the box or is 'different' is painted as someone who is destroying the group through creating disunity. The great paradox is that those who seek to destroy such people are themselves the ones causing disunity and fragmenting their society. </p>


text:
<p><em>Who moreover tried to profane the temple. We laid hold on him, and we would have judged him according to our law</em>-</p><p> Profaning the temple was a capital offence; the Jews could ask the Romans to apply the death penalty for such cases. The Jews had raised riot against Paul by claiming that he had actually profaned the temple by bringing Gentiles into it. He had not done so; and now they reduce the charge to claiming that he had attempted to do so. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands</em>-</p><p> The Jews were complaining that Lysias had over reacted, using violence against the Jews who had "laid hold" on Paul. </p>


text:
<p><em>Commanding his accusers to come before you. You will be able, by examining him yourself, to gain knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him</em>-</p><p> The charge of profaning the temple was just one of a number of "things of which we accuse him". </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so</em>-</p><p> “The charge” singular presumably refers to that of trying to profane the temple (:6). This was hard to prove to the degree required to get Paul the death sentence. Their whole case was extremely weak, and clearly motivated by chronic personal jealousy. It is the inspired record which speaks in the singular, “the charge”, whereas the accusers speak in the plural (“all these things”, :8). But they didn’t boil down to any specific charge apart from that about the profaning of the temple. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul answered: Inasmuch as I do know you have been for many years a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defence</em>-</p><p> Speeches of this nature had a section devoted to praise of the judge. Tertullus spent a long time attempting to butter up Felix with vain praise. Paul is far more to the point, noting the qualification Felix actually had, rather than attempting to flatter the judge. All the way through we get the impression that Paul was more interested in using the trial in order to make a witness, rather than to just win his case.</p>


text:
<p><em>You can verify that it was no more than twelve days ago that I went up to Jerusalem to worship</em>-</p><p> The accusations that Paul had been involved in long term agitation in Jerusalem and the temple could not have been true, since Paul had only arrived in Jerusalem 12 days previously. Paul still uses the Jewish idea of going 'up' to Jerusalem. And yet he elsewhere argues that sacred space is within the heart and of the Spirit, and is not now concerned with localities. But he seems to have had a great respect of the Jerusalem Jews and so wished to convert them; whereas the Lord had intended that his focus instead be upon the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city did they find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd</em>-</p><p> Paul had only been in Jerusalem a few days anyway (:11). It was the Jews, and not him, who had disputed and stirred by crowds, both in Jerusalem and in other cities, as Luke has recorded in Acts. So the emphasis may be upon "<em>me</em>"; it was not Paul, but the Jews who had done these things.</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither can they prove to you the things of which they now accuse me</em>-</p><p> There was no evidence that Paul had brought any Gentile into the temple, nor that he even intended to do so. Paul comes over as very convinced that he is right and cannot be proven wrong; which was why his chain and time in prison was so frustrating for him, seeing he was so convinced of his innocence. </p>


text:
<p><em>But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets</em>-</p><p> Paul can be sensed here almost panting after the chance to make a witness to the Gospel on a fairly high level, to both Jewish and Roman leaders. "The Way" was a term used to designate the Christian movement. Paul argues that it was not a divisive sect, because "the Way" involved belief of everything written in the law and prophets. Believing them does not of course mean 'obeying' them; for the issues of interpretation were so critical. People may insist that they "believe" the same source documents or God, but this does not mean that they are all going to be saved. For as demonstrated in this case, the critical issue is belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Belief in God alone will not save. Salvation is in Jesus, Yah's Salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Having hope toward God, which these people also look for, that there shall be a resurrection, both of the just and unjust</em>-</p><p> Paul stops short of implying that his Jewish enemies would be saved; but he says that "these people" were looking for a resurrection at the last day. Bearing in mind the issue between Sadducees and Pharisees over this very issue, it would seem that those who were taking the active part in the prosecution of Paul were Pharisees and not Sadducees. And yet at his previous trial, it was the Pharisees who had stood up for Paul. We see how fickle people are; and how the fact Paul was a former Pharisee was what drove the Pharisees to hate him even more. Another possibility is that Paul was still trying to exploit the tension between Pharisees and Sadducees over the resurrection issue. </p>


text:
<p><em>Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 23:1'>Act 23:1</a></em>. A personal focus upon the man Christ Jesus ought to lessen the degree to which our faith is focused upon the church, without making us out of church Christians. We need to toughen up, to realize more keenly the self-discipline and self-sacrifice which following the man Jesus requires of us. Paul "exercised" himself in his spiritual life (<em><a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a></em>), the Greek word <em>asko</em> being the source of the English word ascetic. It should not be that our Christianity gives us merely a headful of vital truths but a life unable to fend off sin. We must translate our doctrines into the practice of a transformed life. On-our-knees prayer, fasting, real sacrifice of time, money and human possibilities… this is what the life of Christ is about. This, too, is what forges real personality.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now after some years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation</em>-</p><p> The Jerusalem Poor Fund had been a major preoccupation of Paul, as witnessed especially in 2Corinthians. "After some years" could suggest he had not been in Jerusalem for "some years" and should not therefore be accused of a program of stirring up trouble there. Paul had reasoned with the Corinthians that he was careful to be 'whiter than white' in handling their contributions, and that others and not himself would bring them to Jerusalem. But here he chooses to argue that <em>he</em> brought the offerings- because that angle of truth was more convenient in his legal case. Perhaps it is left as hanging question as to whether he was right or wrong to handle truth in the way he does.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whilst doing this, they found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor with uproar; but there were certain Jews from Asia</em>-</p><p> Paul emphasizes his legal obedience; he did not profane the temple, he was ritually clean ["purified"] in the temple. This sounds very much like a 'boast in the law', and confirms my earlier suggestion that his whole agreement to go through the purification rituals was a quite wrong tokenistic obedience to laws he had argued were obsolete. Once a political rather than spiritual approach is taken to issues, then a whole sequence of decision making is sparked off which makes it ever harder to pull out of the 'political' thinking and revert to spiritual perspectives.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who should have been here before you and to make the accusation, if they had something against me</em>-</p><p> The "Jews from Asia" who had first made the false accusation were likely Jews who had followed Paul from Asia to Palestine in order to continue dogging and upsetting his ministry. What was done in Jerusalem is of exactly the same style to what the Jews of Asia had done in Asia- following Paul around, falsely accusing him, stirring up crowds against him, and pressurizing the Roman authorities to imprison or execute him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council</em>-</p><p> Again, Paul's broad picture of total innocence is going too far. He says that he did nothing wrong during his trial "before the council" apart from shouting out that he was on trial because of his stance on resurrection. But of course he had shouted that out to deflect attention from the wrongdoing he had actually done "when I stood before the council"- which was to curse the judge. Given the religious implications, this was very serious contempt of court and was indeed "wrongdoing". </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 22:6'>Act 22:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Except it be for one statement that I cried standing among them: Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day</em>-</p><p> There was actual wrongdoing by Paul in that courtroom; see on :20. His 'admission' of an 'error' in raising the resurrection issue is nothing less than a blind, distracting attention from the real issue about his contempt of court in cursing the judge.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Felix, having more accurate knowledge concerning the Way, adjourned the proceedings, saying: When Lysias the chief captain shall come, I will decide your case</em>-</p><p> The "accurate knowledge" of Christianity had spread to high places; for Felix knew all about it. He seemed careful therefore not to judge this case with the brash haste for which Tacitus says he was famous. He delayed it until Lysias could come and testify. But Lysias was only a witness to the 'contempt of court' issue as Paul stood before the Jewish Council; and not to the original issue, which was that Paul had supposedly profaned the temple. That was the capital offence which the Jews were trying to push, and it should have been thrown out of court. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then he gave orders to the centurion, that he should be kept in custody but have some liberty; and that none of his friends should be prevented from attending to his needs</em>-</p><p> Felix knew the Gospel, with "accurate knowledge" (:22). He had some conscience; and he therefore allowed Paul a very liberal regime in prison. There were clearly Christians in the area who were friendly towards Paul, who provided for his needs there- in contrast to how in 2 Timothy 4 we get the impression that the local church in Rome did not finally care for Paul in prison at the end of his life. Paul had boasted earlier that his "own hands" had "ministered unto my necessities [needs]" (20:34); and now he had to rely upon others to minister to his needs. This was all part of the same humbling process which we all pass through until we reach the acme of humility which the Lord has in view for us by the end of our lives. Felix is presented by Tacitus as being conscienceless; but the Gospel had power to reach even the most hardened heart, even if it is not positively responded to. Later, "Felix trembled" at the further challenge of the Gospel which Paul presented to him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But after some days, Felix came with Drusilla his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus</em>-</p><p> Harry Whittaker [<em>Studies in the Acts of the Apostles</em>] cites historical evidence to the effect that Felix had only recently married her, and she was only 17.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he reasoned about righteousness, self control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid, and answered: Go away for now. When I have a convenient time I will call for you</em>-</p><p> The very fact of judgment to come is in itself a demand for righteousness and temperance. Felix realized this and trembled, in anticipation of rejection at the judgment. As the Lord had explained in John 5, when a man hears the word of the Gospel, he hears the call to go to judgment. And if he rejects it, he rejects himself from the Lord's presence in the future. Likewise <em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em> reasons that the very existence of the future judgment seat and the Lord ordained as judge of living and dead is a command to repent.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 17:12'>Act 17:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>He hoped meanwhile that money would be given to him by Paul. Therefore, he sent for him more often and conversed with him</em>-</p><p> Clearly Paul at this stage was not without access to money. When he first arrived in Rome, he was able to rent a house. At other times in his ministry, he had to work night and day at Thessalonica in order to support himself. The same wide range of experience, in financial and other areas of life, is often seen in the lives of believers. It was all part of Paul being taught (along with us) to "know" how to live in plenty or in want, that we might be spiritually developed. Our range of experience in life as believers is therefore typically far wider, at least in psychological terms, than that experienced by unbelievers in whom the Spirit is not at work in this way.</p>


text:
<p><em>But after two years, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favour with the Jews, Felix left Paul in prison</em>-</p><p> Paul so often expresses frustration with his "chain", obviously thinking that he could have achieved far more for the Lord if he were free rather than imprisoned. We too chafe at the ties that bind in life. But in the bigger picture, all is for a purpose in our spiritual path. Unlike his time in Rome, we have no recorded letters written by Paul in these two years. He may have written some which are unrecorded; or it might be that during that time he was able to develop the ideas which he later expressed in his letters written from Rome. Tradition states that he and Luke spent this time composing the gospel of Luke and parts of Acts. Perhaps he needed that breather in his life's path. We may feel we need such breaks, but it is better to let the Lord give them to us than make the assumption that we can map out our own spiritual path.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now three days after Festus had arrived in the province, he went to Jerusalem from Caesarea</em>-</p><p> Time is not really a healer. The bitterness felt against Paul and his work meant that the Jews immediately approached the new ruler concerning the case, just three days after he had assumed office.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews presented the charges against Paul; and they petitioned him</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, time had not healed them of their bitterness. Indeed, time can only make bitterness and jealousy grow even worse. This is why the Lord urges us to immediately try to resolve issues with our offended brethren; the idea that time heals is really a justification of our native laziness and preference not to address issues.</p>


text:
<p><em>Asking a favour against Paul, that he would summon him to Jerusalem; for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way</em>-</p><p> Two years previously, they had attempted the same kind of thing. Perhaps their previous plans and place of ambush were still in their minds; as noted on :1 and :2, time does not heal bitterness and jealousy, especially when it is religiously motivated. The "favour" they wanted was to sentence Paul, to pass judgment upon him (:15). </p>


text:
<p><em>However Festus answered that Paul should be kept in custody at Caesarea, and that he intended to go there soon</em>-</p><p> As we see from :9, Festus was not against holding a trial for Paul in Jerusalem. His refusal was therefore related to his awareness of the planned ambush. The Greek behind "should be kept" really is a statement of existing fact; the response was that Paul had been imprisoned in Caesarea and that therefore was where the trial should be held.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, said he, let those that have authority among you come with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him</em>-</p><p> Festus had only just taken on the job of governor. His willingness to deal with this case within the first weeks of his appointment indicates he sensed some urgency to deal with it. This is perhaps a testament to how passionate the Jews were regarding the question. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had stayed among them not more than eight or ten days, he went to Caesarea; and the next day he sat on the judgment seat and commanded Paul to be brought</em>-</p><p> Given the precise nature of Luke's style, we wonder why the vague "eight or ten days"; perhaps Luke was relying on various sources for his information. Here we see the interface of Divine inspiration with human writing. Luke gathered his information sources, and the overall recording of it all is inspired. But in God's wisdom, this particular detail is left vague. Another possibility is that "eight to ten" meant 'eight full days', as Jews reckon part of a day as a day. The fact he immediately opened the case the day after arrival, when he was new to the job and must have had a mass of administrative issues to attend to, is again a reflection of how urgently he perceived Paul's case as needing attention. The two year delay had clearly irritated the Jews and Festus wished to demonstrate that he was proactive in dealing with issues. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had arrived, the Jews that had come from Jerusalem stood round him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove</em>-</p><p> The impression is that as soon as Paul entered the court room, the Jews started yelling accusations, and even standing around him in an intimidating manner. Courts then were rather different to the orderly and sober proceedings of today. This gives insight into the Lord's parable of the widow woman pleading with the judge for attention to her case; she would have had to insistently shout her cause over the noise of others.</p>


text:
<p><em>While Paul said in his defence: Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all</em>-</p><p> Paul was somewhat playing with words here. For his letters and teaching was full of language which was purposefully against the imperial cult, as was the Lord's language of the Kingdom of God; indeed, Paul did preach loyalty to another King and another Kingdom than Caesar's. And whilst he had not offended against the law of Moses, apart from in cursing the high priest, he had indeed offended against "the law of the Jews". He may of course still be referring to the law of Moses, but alluding to how it had been hijacked by the Jews. Similarly, the Old Testament "temple of Yahweh" and "feasts of Yahweh" are described as "the temple of the Jews" and "feasts of the Jews". They had hijacked Yahweh's laws and religion and turned it into their own religion, just as many have done today:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>But Festus, desiring to gain favour with the Jews, answered Paul and said: Will you go up to Jerusalem and there be judged of these things before me?</em>-</p><p> Festus had sought to be proactive in dealing with Paul's case for the same reason. And he knew that they wanted to see Paul tried in their holy city. He didn't want any ambushes on the way (see on :4), but he was willing to agree to a Jerusalem trial.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul said: I am standing before Caesar's judgment seat, where I should be judged. To the Jews have I done no wrong, as you also very well know</em>-</p><p> Paul's appeal to Caesar seems to have been quite unnecessary, and again it seems to have been the outcome of bitter exasperation and almost pride:&nbsp; "I ought to be judged", as a Roman citizen..."no man may deliver me...", "as thou very well knowest"; the response of Festus seems to be appropriate to Paul's arrogance: "Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? Unto Caesar thou shalt go" (<em><a href='B:510 25:10-12'>Act 25:10-12</a></em>). The word used to describe Paul's "appeal" is that usually translated "to call on (the name of the Lord)", perhaps suggesting that this was whom Paul should have called in, not Caesar. I have elsewhere suggested that Paul was obsessed with getting to Rome and making a witness there. He had also been told by the Lord that he would one day witness there, as was his desire. Having been two years in prison, it must have seemed an impossibility to ever get there, especially with increasing age and health issues. His appeal to Caesar was therefore calculated and not made in hot blood. And yet it was a path to further imprisonment and eventual death; when he could have been set free, as Festus comments later. But his entire journey to Jerusalem had been against the Lord's advice; and the train of events which transpired from it was not so much judgment / punishment as consequence of action.</p>


text:
<p><em>If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying, but if none of these things are true of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar</em>-</p><p> Paul clearly understood that "the wages of sin is death" and that he was "chief of sinners". He had indeed committed many things worthy of death, not least extrajudicial murder of Christians. We get the sense therefore that he was speaking in hot blood, furiously angry with the Jews and with how Felix and Festus favoured them over him. His appeal to Caesar was not without forethought and correct motivation, but it was also mixed&nbsp;with anger and frustration. Human motivation is rarely pure.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered: You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar shall you go</em>-</p><p> This "council" was not the Sanhedrin, but rather the group of advisors called "assessors" who sat with the governor in such trials. Festus could have quashed Paul's appeal to Caesar; he had the power to, especially as there was no clear case against Paul. Perhaps Festus saw in this appeal a nice way out for him; for it would be a lengthy process, and the Jews would have to make representation somehow in Rome. He had not condemned nor released Paul, so the Jews could have no reason to be angry with him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when some days had passed, Agrippa the King and Bernice arrived at Caesarea and greeted Festus</em>-</p><p> The continued record of days passing, and in :14 of "many days", is perhaps to help us sense Paul's frustration at the constant waiting and delaying. Agrippa was the son of the Herod who had been smitten by God for his pride in 12:20-23. Bernice was the sister of Drusilla, the teenage wife of Felix; and also the sister of Agrippa. They were rumoured to be in an incestuous relationship. It is ironic that such immoral people were the judges of others' morals. And that is the weakness of all human systems of justice and judgment. We are not to judge simply because we actually<em> cannot</em> judge; in essential terms, we are not morally above those we judge.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as they stayed there many days, Festus laid Paul's case before the King, saying: There is a certain man left as a prisoner by Felix</p><p> </em>As noted on :13, the endless passing of "many days" and apparently endless delays would have been deeply frustrating for Paul. We too can see life as an endless series of frustrations, assuming that normal life, better life, is around the corner. But the Spirit is working constantly in our lives, so that we can realize that every moment is being used just as much as any other moment. </p>


text:
<p><em>About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for sentence against him</em>-</p><p> The Bible is a highly abbreviated record of the history and words of God's people. We wonder why so much attention is given in this part of God's inspired word to repeating facts the record has already given us, especially when they might not appear to add anything to the teaching. That of course may just be appearance- in that we have not noticed various gems of understanding and spiritual insight. But it can also be that the long drawn out accounts here&nbsp;of Paul's judicial process may be to help us to enter into his sense of frustration. </p>


text:
<p><em>To whom I answered that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone, before the accused has the accusers face to face, and has had opportunity to make his defence concerning the matter charged against him</em>-</p><p> The 'giving up' refers to the death sentence. The Jews surely knew this, but seeing the Sadducees were the richest people in Jewish society, it could be that they had attempted to bribe Festus to try Paul in Jerusalem in his absence, seeing he was imprisoned in Caesarea. Here therefore he is explaining that he had upheld Roman tradition and justice.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, when they gathered here, I did not delay, and the next day sat on the judgment seat and commanded the man to be brought</em>-</p><p> Festus is emphasizing his proactive approach, in contrast to how Felix his predecessor had left the case on ice for two years. </p>


text:
<p><em>Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed</em>-</p><p> Surely Festus knew that the case against Paul was weak. And he had already met with the accusers in Jerusalem ahead of the trial in Caesarea, so he was surely aware that the accusations were weak. But he gives the impression to Agrippa that he was surprised. This kind of less than total honesty is seen throughout Paul's trials, and also in Paul's responses. Perhaps one purpose of the extended narratives of the trials is to leave us with this impression- that human justice is flawed and is therefore not ultimate justice, and only God's justice is ultimate. Paul writes so much in Romans about justice and chapters 1-8 are so full of legal terminology that we wonder whether in fact Paul wrote Romans during his imprisonment in Caesarea.</p>


text:
<p><em>Rather they had certain questions against him of their own religion and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive</em>-</p><p> Festus perceived that the nub of the issue with Paul was not connected to the original case, i:e. that he had supposedly brought Gentiles into the temple. Rather did the whole Jewish anger with Paul revolve around his attitude to the Lord Jesus and the claim of His resurrection. This was and is utterly critical to any Christian life, and all other issues flow from that. Festus and any secular mind would be confused as to how the issue of a man being dead or alive could make such a huge argument arise. The fact it did make such a difference for the Jews is therefore a testament to their bad conscience; subconsciously, they sensed that the Lord had risen indeed, but their denial of it led them to untold anger with Paul who was living proof of His resurrection. It was Paul's transformed life, which they were all aware of, which was a great evidence that the Lord had risen and worked through His Spirit in the lives of His people; and they needed to destroy that evidence.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I, being perplexed how to inquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these matters</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19, the secular man is indeed perplexed as to how the possible resurrection of a Palestinian Jew some years back could really be such a critical issue. By offering to hand Paul over to a Sanhedrin trial, Festus was tacitly saying that Paul had done nothing wrong by Roman law, and so his crimes were a matter of breaking Jewish ritual laws. By handing him over to Jewish jurisdiction, Festus was washing his hands of the case. The fact that he could legally hand him over to Jewish legal judgment is an admission that Paul allowed himself to be counted within the synagogue system. He mentions his five beatings by the Jews in <em><a href='B:540 11:24'>2Co 11:24</a></em>; but such synagogue discipline could only be administered to those within the synagogue system. This was the price Paul paid for seeking to be all things to all men, for identifying with his target audience in order to convert them. It could be argued that he was the apostle to the Gentiles, not the Jews (which was Peter's calling); and he could have avoided so much grief in his life if he had followed that calling and stopped endlessly seeking to convert Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when Paul had appealed to be kept for the decision of the Emperor, I commanded him to be kept until I should send him to Caesar</em>-</p><p> Festus may be suggesting Paul was deeply unwise here. For Festus could close the Roman side of the case, and leave Paul to accept some symbolic punishment at the hands of the Jewish court in Jerusalem. The fact Paul insisted on remaining within the Roman sphere of justice meant that he risked Roman judgment and a death penalty if found guilty. And so it worked out. His obsession to get to Rome and witness for Christ was what led, humanly speaking, to his further imprisonment and final demise. But the Lord was working through that, even if it were not His ideal intended path for Paul. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Agrippa said to Festus: I also would like to hear the man myself. Tomorrow, said he, you shall hear him</em>-</p><p> The desire to speed things up is again apparent; the trial was set for the next day.</p>


text:
<p><em>So the next day, when Agrippa had arrived and Bernice, with great pomp, they entered into the place of hearing with the chief captains and principal men of the city; and at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in</em>-</p><p> "Paul" is presented in contrast to the great pomp and power of the men he stood to be judged by. The fearlessness and verve of Paul, his refusal to be cowed by the power and pomp of flesh, is a wonderful testimony to the power of the Spirit within Paul.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Festus said: King Agrippa and all men who are here present with us, you see this man, about whom all the crowd of the Jews made appeal to me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he should not live any longer</em>-</p><p> "You see this man" recalls "Behold the man" at the Lord's trial. The idea was 'You see what a bedraggled specimen of humanity these Jews are making such a fuss about'. "The crowd of the Jews" is a term of disdain, especially bearing in mind that it was the Jewish leadership who were accusing Paul. </p>


text:
<p><em>But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and as he appealed to the emperor, I decided to send him</em>-</p><p> A Roman citizen had the right to ask for his case to be heard by the emperor, but the local authorities had the power to veto that. It is therefore all the more significant that although Festus considered Paul had done nothing wrong, he still allowed the appeal to Caesar to stand. He obviously ran the risk of being accused of timewasting by sending a case to Rome for judgment which clearly should be thrown out of court. It was Paul's passionate desire to get to Rome, and to at last get out of confinement at Caesarea. The Lord too intended Paul to witness at Rome, knowing this was Paul's dominant desire. And so against all sense, Festus agrees to send him there. The only possibility is that he considered that doing this would be a neutral outcome for him; for anything less than Paul's dead body would not placate the Jews, and yet Festus had a conscience, as he knew the Gospel well, and didn't want to go down that path. So in this complex web of less than honest and ideal motivations by all concerned, Paul included, the Lord worked His will. </p>


text:
<p><em>But I have nothing certain to write to my lord concerning him. Therefore, I have brought him before you all, and especially before you King Agrippa, so that after the examination has taken place I may have something to write</em>-</p><p> Festus was hoping that Agrippa might observe some legal issue which would justify sending Paul to be tried at Rome; and hoping that having Agrippa's approval of the appeal to Rome would make his action seem more credible. I suggest the simple truth was that Festus wanted to send Paul there in order to salve his conscience. He did not want to kill Paul to placate the Jews because of that conscience, but he also didn't want to upset the Jews by releasing Paul or appearing to not be proactive. In all this we see the power of the Gospel in probing deepest conscience. If we preach the Gospel, we are touching the conscience of our hearers, for all their bravado of disinterest.</p>


text:
<p><em>For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, without specifying the charges against him</em>-</p><p> As noted on :25 and :26, Festus did not have to send this prisoner to Rome. He had every right to turn down the appeal as mere timewasting, and hand the case over to the Jews to judge, whilst disallowing any death penalty. For the original charge of profaning the temple had now been dropped, and that was the only one of their charges which had the possibility of the death penalty. Agrippa must likewise have considered it strange that Festus was so insistent on sending the prisoner to Rome; and again, it was only his own piqued conscience which made him want to hear the man himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Agrippa said to Paul: You are permitted to speak for yourself. Then Paul stretched out his hand and made his defence</em>-</p><p> "For yourself" may be a reference here to how Paul defended himself, and did not use any advocate or legal team. We recall how the Jews had made use of one, Tertullus, to make their case in an earlier trial. Paul was using these trials as an opportunity to witness to the Gospel and not just to defend himself. We can sense his eagerness as he makes his case for Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em>I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defence before you this day concerning all the things of which I am accused by the Jews</em>-</p><p> Agrippa was Herod Agrippa the second. The whole Herod family had had the Gospel witnessed to them. Herod the Great was told of the birth of the Lord by the wise men and Jewish scribes; his son Antipas and granddaughter Herodias were witnessed to by John the Baptist; his son Agrippa the first had killed James and tried to kill Peter because their message had tweaked his conscience; and now his son Agrippa II was being witnessed to by Paul. This was a family the Lord surely tried to appeal to. Again we sense Paul's eager using of these trials as an opportunity to witness; as his appeal to Caesar had been accepted, he could have actually refused to testify in this trial. But he eagerly used the opportunity to witness by all means, and we need to take some of that spirit with us in our lives.</p><p>The codex Beza adds at this point: "taking courage, and receiving comfort by the Holy Spirit". In this case, Paul is directly alluding to his Lord's promise to provide the right words to say in times of public witness under persecution such as this (<em><a href='B:470 10:18-20'>Mat 10:18-20</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Especially because you are expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews. Therefore, I beg that you hear me patiently</em>-</p><p> "Hear me patiently" is an allusion to the LXX of <em><a href='B:240 25:15'>Pro 25:15</a></em>: "By long patience is a prince persuaded". Paul had the spiritual ambition to even try to convert Agrippa. We too need that ambition, never writing people off as unreachable by our witness. Agrippa "the prince" is perhaps framed in terms of this verse when he is recorded as replying using the same word as in <em><a href='B:240 25:15'>Pro 25:15</a></em>: "You almost <em>persuade</em> me to be a Christian" (:28). </p>


text:
<p><em>My manner of life from my youth, which was from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, do all the Jews know</em>-</p><p> The Jews who were accusing Paul had personally known him in his Pharisee days. They were personal witnesses of his transformation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Having knowledge of me from the first (if they are willing to admit it) that after the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee</em>-</p><p> The Jews were unwilling to admit [Gk. 'be legal witnesses in court'] that they knew Paul's past. For it was his radical transformation which was in fact the great witness to the utter truth of Paul's case. By denying it, they were witnesses against themselves. They were in denial of his transformation, which was the proof of the things he taught about the Lord Jesus. And likewise, presentation of true theology alone in our age will convert very few. It is the truth of it seen in our lives which is the compelling witness.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 22:6'>Act 22:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers</em>-</p><p> This is another statement to the effect that the Christian Gospel offered the same sure hope which the promise to Abraham and the fathers offered to Abraham and his singular seed. The Lord's death had opened the scope of that promise to whoever wished to associate with the seed. Paul is arguing that the accusations against him are really all about the promise God made to the Jewish fathers. The Jews were therefore accusing God far more than himself. </p>


text:
<p><em>To which our twelve tribes earnestly serve night and day, hoping to attain the promises. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O king!</em>-</p><p> "Night and day" refers to the evening and morning synagogue services, where the promises to Abraham were alluded to or repeated. Paul goes on to explain that the hope of attaining the promises implied belief in a resurrection; for the promises of eternal inheritance, blessing etc. had clearly not been obtained and could only be obtained by immortalization. The Sadducees amongst his accusers would of course take issue with this, as they denied the resurrection and argued that the promises gave hope only in this life. Hence their manic materialism. But Paul doesn't appear to raise that point; his appeal at this point was to his judges, seeking to convert them, rather than seeking to expose the obvious lines of weakness in the position of his opponents. And this needs to be remembered in all our witness; that we are seeking to convert to Christ, rather than merely exposing logical error in those who are against us.</p>


text:
<p><em>Why would any of you think it incredible that God raises the dead?</em>-</p><p> If we have really died and resurrected with the Lord, we will be dead unto the things of this world (<em><a href='B:580 2:20'>Col 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:1'>Col 3:1</a></em>). This is why Paul could imply that the greatest proof that Christ had risen from the dead was the change in character which had occurred within him (<em><a href='B:510 26:8'>Act 26:8</a></em> ff:). This was “the power of his resurrection"; and it works within us too. The death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth aren’t just facts we know; if they are truly believed, there is within them the power of ultimate transformation.</p>


text:
<p><em>I truly thought that I should do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth</em>-</p><p> The "thought" connects with the challenge of :8 as to why any should "think" resurrection to be incredible. Paul is saying that his changed thinking could be replicated in them also changing their thinking about the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And this I did in Jerusalem, and I shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them</em>-</p><p> "This I did" shows that his "thought" of :9 became action; he is recognizing the truth of the Lord's teaching that thought is action. The repeated account of Paul's conversion in Acts, when the record is highly abbreviated otherwise, is because Paul is set up as the parade example of all conversions to Christ (<em><a href='B:610 1:13-18'>1Ti 1:13-18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And in all the synagogues I often punished them</em>-</p><p> I am convinced that a major reason for the success of the early church was that they weren’t paranoid about issues of fellowship and guilt-by-association; they were simply radical preachers. They preached an exclusive message, but they wished to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The Lord Himself taught that the time would come when His followers would be disfellowshipped from the synagogues. But He doesn’t teach them to leave the synagogues, even though first century Judaism was both doctrinally and morally corrupt. <em><a href='B:510 26:11'>Act 26:11</a></em> would seem to imply that there were Christians “in every synagogue”. </p><p><em>Trying to force them to blaspheme</p><p> </em>Gk. 'necessitated'. It could be claimed that it is never 'necessary' to blaspheme; for some died under torture, not accepting any way out, and thus shall receive a "better resurrection" (<em><a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a></em>). But Paul takes a more gracious view here; he recognized that the torture he had applied left the Christians with no other human choice but to blaspheme the name of Jesus, and he takes full blame for this. See on <em><a href='B:610 1:13'>1Ti 1:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>And being furiously enraged at them, I persecuted them even in foreign cities</em>-</p><p> Paul’s progressive appreciation of his own sinfulness is reflected in how he describes what he did in persecuting Christians in ever more terrible terms, the older he gets. He describes his victims as “men and women” whom he ‘arrested’ (<em><a href='B:510 8:3'>Act 8:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:4'>Act 22:4</a></em>), then he admits he threatened and murdered them (<em><a href='B:510 9:3'>Act 9:3</a></em>), then he persecuted “the way” unto death (<em><a href='B:510 22:4'>Act 22:4</a></em>); then he speaks of them as “those who believe” (<em><a href='B:510 22:19'>Act 22:19</a></em>) and finally, in a crescendo of shame with himself, he speaks of how he furiously persecuted, like a wild animal, unto the death, “many of the saints”, not only in Palestine but also “to foreign [Gentile] cities” (<em><a href='B:510 26:10-11'>Act 26:10-11</a></em>). He came to appreciate his brethren the more, as he came to realize the more his own sinfulness. And this is surely a pattern for us all. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 22:6'>Act 22:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Thus I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests</em>-</p><p> These were the very men who were accusing him, and he is now stating that they were involved as accessories to extrajudicial murder and torture. "Thus I journeyed" invites his audience to imagine the rabid thinking which dominated his mind; the psychological change in him could only have been achieved by external agency. And that agency was the spirit of the risen Lord.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 22:6'>Act 22:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>But at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining around me and those that journeyed with me</em>-</p><p> The repeated "O King" is because Paul was specifically seeking to convert Agrippa. His spiritual ambition in attempting this is an encouragement to us all in our witness to those who seem so unreachable by the Gospel we preach. "Shining around me" suggests the light was not shone down from Heaven as in a beam; but that the Lord Himself stood near Paul, next to him. The word literally means 'to be a halo around'. Paul was in this sense sanctified, made a saint, through standing with the Lord. Those with him could have responded to this grace too, but chose not to. "And those that journeyed with me" would suggest that the Lord sought to bring them from darkness to light also, but they refused to understand the word spoken, although they heard it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the cattle prod</em>-</p><p> The idea is that Paul understood the voice that was speaking; whereas the men with him heard the voice but chose not to understand. Perhaps Saul had been observing oxen ploughing along the road to Damascus, hence the usage of that analogy. The Lord's question as to "why" Saul so persecuted the believers in the body of Christ was left unanswered. The answer was that Paul's bad conscience was leading him to denial, and that denial was expressing itself in unreasonable anger. And the Jews who were persecuting Paul were in just the same situation. They knew in their consciences that Jesus of Nazareth had been their Messiah; "this is the heir, come let us kill Him" was how the Lord's parable explained it. That guilty conscience meant a desire to eliminate those like Paul who had at first denied it and then accepted it. They were driven by the very same psychological factors which Paul was driven by. </p>


text:
<p><em>And I said: Who are you, Lord? And the Lord said: I am Jesus whom you persecute</em>-</p><p> The question "Why?" was answered by Saul with the question "Who are you, Lord?". This may not have been a request for information. It is perhaps in the spirit of Jacob's meeting with Angel, wrestling God as Saul had done, and then asking the Angel's name as Jacob did (<em><a href='B:10 32:29'>Gen 32:29</a></em>). As the Lord Jesus called Saul by name, so the Angel gave Jacob a new name, Israel. And it could be that although unrecorded, the Lord then changed Saul to Paul. To ask someone's name can be understood as a Hebraism for recognizing their greatness or superiority. </p>


text:
<p><em>But arise, and stand upon your feet</em>-</p><p> This is a quotation from Ezekiel's experience, having seen the glory of God and being asked to go and witness it to an Israel who would not listen because they preferred Babylon (<em><a href='B:330 2:1-2'>Eze 2:1-2</a></em>). </p><p><em>For to this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a servant and a witness both of the things in which you have seen me, and of the things which I will reveal to you</em>-</p><p> “A servant” is literally, a slave. The apostles in their letters usually open by reminding their readers that they are slaves of the Lord Jesus- this is how they saw themselves. Paul was called to be a slave of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 26:16'>Act 26:16</a></em>; Gk. <em>hypereten</em>-</p><p> a galley slave, rowing the boat chained to the oars). There were slaves who were made stewards or managers [‘bishops’] of the Master’s business, but essentially they themselves were still slaves.</p>


text:
<p><em>Delivering you from the people of the Jews and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you</em>-</p><p> Paul was therefore confident that he could not be ultimately destroyed by the union of Jews and Gentiles now gathered against him. But we must factor in here that eventually, the Lord did not deliver him from Gentile power and he died under Nero's persecution. The promise of deliverance was therefore in order that he might conduct his intended ministry; but when that ministry was over, then he was in fact delivered to the power of Gentile persecution and execution. </p>


text:
<p><em>To open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light</em>-</p><p>&nbsp;The Lord Jesus seems to have encouraged Paul to see Moses as his hero. Thus he asked him to go and live in Arabia before beginning his ministry, just as Moses did (<em><a href='B:550 1:17'>Gal 1:17</a></em>). When he appeared to Paul on the Damascus road, he spoke in terms reminiscent of the Angel's commission to Moses at the burning bush: “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of those things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the (Jewish) people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to…turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance... Whereupon... I (Paul) was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (<em><a href='B:510 26:16-19'>Act 26:16-19</a></em>). Moses was promised that he would be protected from Pharaoh so that he could bring out God's people from the darkness of Egyptian slavery ("the power of Satan"); going from darkness to light is used&nbsp;by Peter as an idiom to describe Israel's deliverance from Egypt, which the new Israel should emulate (<em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>). Moses led Israel out of Egypt so that they might be reconciled to God, and&nbsp;be led by him to the promised inheritance of Canaan. As Moses was eventually obedient to that heavenly vision, so was Paul- although perhaps he too went through (unrecorded) struggles to be obedient to it, after the pattern of Moses being so reluctant.</p><p>Paul was to bring others to the light just as John had (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em> =&nbsp; <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:23'>Act 26:23</a></em>). </p><p>God’s manifestation of His word through preaching is limited by the amount of manifestation His preachers allow it. Through the first century preaching of the Gospel, men and women were "turned from darkness to light... <em>that </em>they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified" (<em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>).</p><p><em>And from the power of Satan to God</em>-</p><p> </p>&nbsp;<p>There are some clear contrasts drawn here:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>To open their eyes </td><td>(They were blind). </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>To turn them from darkness </td><td>to light. </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>From the power of Satan (sin) </td><td>unto God (cp. <em><a href='B:690 1:5'>1Jn 1:5</a></em>). </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Unforgiven) </td><td>receive forgiveness of sins. </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(Gentiles without inheritance by faith in “the hope of Israel”) </td><td>them (the Jews) that had access to sanctification by faith. </td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;&nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:560 4:17-20'>Eph 4:17-20</a></em> almost seems to directly allude back to this passage in <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>: “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not so learned Christ...". Being under the power of Satan is therefore a result of having an empty, vain, fleshly mind (i:e. the Satan of evil desires in our mind having full power) and being ignorant, without understanding. <em><a href='B:470 13:19'>Mat 13:19</a></em> says that Satan (cp. <em><a href='B:480 4:15'>Mar 4:15</a></em>) has power over a person because of their lack of understanding of the Word. <em><a href='B:560 4:17-20'>Eph 4:17-20</a></em> is referring to the same thing as “the power of Satan” defined in <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>. “To open their eyes” implies to have the eyes of understanding opened (cp. <em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>).</p>&nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em> implies that it was “the power of Satan” that stopped the Gentiles from sharing the inheritance of the Gospel which was preached to the Jews in the promises (<em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:22'>Joh 4:22</a></em>). “Satan” is often connected with the Law and the Jewish system. Maybe this is another example. Note too the allusions in this verse to <em><a href='B:290 42:6-7'>Isa 42:6-7</a></em>: “I... will... keep you, and give you for a... light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house”. This equates the power of Satan with a prison house, and the Law is likened to a prison in <em><a href='B:550 3:23'>Gal 3:23</a></em> and <em><a href='B:550 4:3'>Gal 4:3</a></em>.</p><p>There are allusions in <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em> to the Jews’ crucifixion of Jesus: “This is your hour, and the power of darkness” (<em><a href='B:490 22:53'>Luk 22:53</a></em>); “Satan” (the Jews) has desired to have you” (<em><a href='B:490 22:31'>Luk 22:31</a></em>), Jesus warned the disciples at the last supper.</p><p>The previous verse (<em><a href='B:510 26:17'>Act 26:17</a></em>) shows the Lord Jesus strengthening Paul to be brave in his mission to the Gentiles – “delivering you from the [Jewish] people, and from the Gentiles”. Jesus Himself was “delivered to the Gentiles” (<em><a href='B:490 18:32-33'>Luk 18:32-33</a></em>) for crucifixion by the Jews, and <em><a href='B:480 15:15'>Mar 15:15</a></em> implies Jesus was delivered to “the people”, too. The phrase “the people’ frequently occurs in the crucifixion records. It is as if Jesus is saying: ‘I was delivered to the Gentiles and (Jewish) people because of My preaching; I am now commissioning you to preach, facing the same battle against (the Jewish) Satan and man’s blindness to the Word of God, due to his love of the flesh, as I did; but I will deliver you from the Gentiles and Jewish people, rather than deliver you to them, as I was. You are going to spend your life going through the same experiences as I faced in My last hours’. Thus, in yet another way, we can understand how Paul could say “I am crucified with Christ” (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>).</p><p><em>To the end they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith in me</em>-</p><p> Salvation is <em>not</em> a purely personal matter. It is part of a shared experience, something we obtain a part in. Christ <em>is</em> His body. He doesn't exist separate from His body; for all existence in the Bible is bodily existence. And <em>we</em> are His body. He is us. Likewise we are the branches of the Christ-vine (John 15). Because we are all in the one body of Christ, therefore we are intimately associated with the other parts of the body.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 13:9'>Act 13:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision</em>-</p><p> "Disobedient" is literally 'not persuaded'. Paul is saying that he was not unpersuaded by the Lord's appearance. And this is the same word used by Agrippa in :28, when he says Paul has almost persuaded him to become a Christian. Paul was witnessing from his own experience of being persuaded by the Lord; and he wants to persuade others.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em>. </p><p><em>But declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to their repentance</em>-</p><p> It seems likely that Paul went to hear John the Baptist preach; "there went out to him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:480 1:5'>Mar 1:5</a></em>), and at this time Paul was living in Jerusalem. I believe Paul heard John and was convicted by him of Christ. John preached the need to "bring forth fruits meet unto repentance" (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>); and Paul here made those his own watchwords in his world-wide preaching.</p><p>Paul preached that men "should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (<em><a href='B:510 26:18-20'>Act 26:18-20</a></em>). As with <em><a href='B:470 21:28-31'>Mat 21:28-31</a></em>, this refers primarily to baptism. "Repent and turn to God" surely matches "Repent and be baptized" in <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>. Turning to God is associated with baptism in <em><a href='B:510 9:35'>Act 9:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:21'>Act 11:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:19'>Act 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:9'>1Th 1:9</a></em>:&nbsp; Following conversion, our works should match the profession of faith we have made. But there is no proof here for the equation 'Forgiveness = repentance + forsaking'. The "works" seem to refer to positive achievement rather than undoing the results of past failures. Works meet for repentance are fruits of repentance (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 3:8'>Luk 3:8</a></em>). We have shown that there are different degrees of fruit/ repentance which God accepts, and that this fruit is brought forth to <em>God</em>, and that its development takes time. We cannot therefore disfellowship a believer for not bringing forth fruit in one aspect of his life. </p>


text:
<p><em>For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me-</em></p><p> The &quot;cause&quot; was that they had been called upon to repent, and their refusal to do so was leading them to try to kill Paul. This is how conscience works. We seek to eliminate the persons or issues causing our guilt, and which summon us to repentance. The opposition to Christian preaching is exactly because it is [or should be] a call to repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, having obtained the help that is from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should happen</em>-</p><p> "The help that is from God" was the gift of the Spirit, both in cleansing Paul psychologically from his past, and in empowering him in his life's work of witness. Paul testified to the Lord Jesus (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:15'>1Co 15:15</a></em> s:w:), and He in turn bore witness to the [preaching of] the word of his grace (<em><a href='B:510 15:8'>Act 15:8</a></em>). In Paul's witness lay His witness. The reference to "small and great" is yet another hint that Paul is witnessing specifically at this time to "the great", his judges. And Paul insists that he is saying nothing radically new, and therefore Judaism ought to have no problem with him teaching what was in their own Scriptures. </p>


text:
<p><em>That the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> Elsewhere, Paul took a prophecy concerning how Christ personally would be the light of the whole world (<em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em>), and applies it to himself in explanation of why he was devoted to being a light to the whole world <em>himself </em>(<em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em> - although here in 26:23 he applies it to Jesus personally). Paul even says that this prophecy of Christ as the light of the world was a <em>commandment</em> to him; all that is true of the Lord Jesus likewise becomes binding upon us, because we are <em>in</em> Him. Note that Paul says that God has commanded <em>us</em> to witness; it wasn’t that Paul was a special case, and God especially applied Isaiah’s words concerning Christ as light of the Gentiles to Paul. They apply to <em>us</em>, to all who are in Christ. And when on trial, Paul explained <em>his </em>preaching to the Jews “and then to the Gentiles” as being related to the fact that he had to “shew” the Gospel to them because Christ rose from the dead to “shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles” (<em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:23'>Act 26:23</a></em>). In other words, he saw his personal preaching as shewing forth the light of Jesus personally.</p><p>The RV offers another slant on this. The Lord Jesus was the light of the world on account of His resurrection: “He first by the resurrection from the dead should proclaim light both to the [Jewish] people and to the Gentiles” (<em><a href='B:510 26:23'>Act 26:23</a></em> RV). If we are baptized into His death and resurrection, we too are the light of this world in that the light of His life breaks forth in us. And this is exactly why belief in His resurrection is an imperative to preach it. And it’s why the great commission flows straight out of the resurrection narrative.</p><p>We have suggested elsewhere that Paul was first called to the Gospel by the preaching of John the Baptist. He initially refused to heed the call to “do works meet for repentance”. But, fully aware of this, he preached this very same message to others (<em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he thus made his defence, Festus said with a loud voice: Paul, you are mad. Your much learning is turning you mad</em>-</p><p> The loudness of the voice was surely a statement of the depth of unease within his conscience. Again, we see a basic psychological lesson: the louder a person shouts down another, the louder is the internal voice of their own disquiet at the truth being presented. Luke uses the same term in describing how the Jews "with loud voices" demanded both the Lord's crucifixion and the death of Stephen, who had likewise touched their consciences (<em><a href='B:490 23:23'>Luk 23:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:57'>Act 7:57</a></em>). The reference to "much learning", much reading of words, may be a reference to how Paul perhaps had begged for the scriptures to be brought to him in his confinement, and he spent his time for those many months poring over the parchments. We recall how he begged Timothy to bring him such scrolls when imprisoned in Rome.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul said: I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but speak words of truth and soberness</em>-</p><p> Point blank disagreement with a powerful judge who is shouting at you isn't a smart thing to do. But Paul was there to witness, to seek to convert his judges, rather than to justify himself. If he were out for self-preservation, as are most men who stand in the dock, he would have let this accusation go unchallenged. But Paul is alluding to how he had been "exceedingly mad" before his conversion (:11); and now he was sane. </p>


text:
<p><em>For the king knows of these things, to whom also I speak freely. For I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him. For this has not been done in a corner</em>-</p><p> Paul is really out to convert the king; he says that the king knows the truth of all he is saying, and appeals for him to be honest to his conscience and not kick against the goads. The king was of course appraised of the situation with Paul- everybody knew that. So "none of these things is hidden from him" more naturally refers to the truth of the appeal Paul is making to him. </p><p>Paul exhorts us to speak ‘freely’ in our preaching (<em><a href='B:540 3:12'>2Co 3:12</a></em>), just as he himself “spoke freely’ in his witness to Agrippa. He there is our pattern. Our salvation is through faith in God's absolute grace; but if it is&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;faith, we will preach it on the housetops, we simply can't keep the knowledge of&nbsp;<em>such</em>&nbsp;grace, such great salvation, to ourselves. "Having, then, such hope, we use much freedom of speech" in preaching (<em><a href='B:540 3:12'>2Co 3:12</a></em> YLT):&nbsp;</p><p>Despite this direct and emotional appeal, Paul still framed it in terms understandable by his audience; "this has not been done in a corner" is a quotation from Plato. </p>


text:
<p><em>King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you believe</em>-</p><p> This suggests that Paul in full flow, even shackled and in prison clothes, had a fleck of arrogance and aggression in his presentation. He was challenging the very conscience of his king and judge. To ask a personal question like that of your king-judge was just not to be done in court. It would be judged today as contempt of court. But Paul was not standing there in self-defence, but for witness, all out of persuade towards faith in Christ. And that is what our witness should be; not self-defending our theological positions, but earnestly seeking to persuade towards faith in our hearers. How did Paul know that Agrippa believed the prophets? Was there an awkward silence in response to his question? Or was Paul being purely rhetorical, hastening on to say that he knew or recognized that Agrippa claimed to believe the Jewish prophets. We can assume that Luke's highly abbreviated account of the trial has left out frequent quotation from the prophets by Paul, in order to demonstrate that the Lord had to die, rise again and be witnessed to by the members of His glorified body. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Agrippa said to Paul: You almost persuade me to become a Christian</p><p> </em>Paul was not against using persuasion; he didn’t just ‘preach the truth’ and leave it for others to decide. Agrippa commented: “With but a little [more] persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little [persuasion] or with much, not only thou but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am” (<em><a href='B:510 26:28-29'>Act 26:28-29</a></em> RV). Paul wasn’t against using persuasion to bring men unto his Lord, and neither should we be. He didn't just make a lame witness to true propositions and leave it to his audience to believe or disbelieve it.</p><p>Agrippa's words "You almost persuade me to become a Christian" may have been muttered as an aside; and they may have been a total departure from how a king-judge is supposed to act in court. The power of Paul's testimony was such that even he had to admit the effect it was having upon him. We can be encouraged that the message we preach is of huge power in the consciences of others, regardless of all the apparent disinterest. If you stand on a street corner handing out fliers advertising a product, people will be mildly polite in covering their disinterest. But when they see it's about religion or Christianity... their body language often changes. And if they read further what is on the tract, their response is utterly unlike the response observable in a person reading a flier advertising a product for sale.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul said: I will pray to God, that whether in a little time or a longer time, not you only, but also all that hear me this day might become as I am (apart from these chains)</em>-</p><p> This was Paul's whole intention. His ambition to make converts knew no bounds. He wasn't only going for Agrippa... he wished the entire audience, including the Jews, would follow his example and path of conversion. They too could stop kicking against the goads of their own consciences and be released into the wonderful freedom of the bondservants of the Lord Jesus. "Apart from these chains" is one of several times when Paul's deep frustration with his situation cannot help but come through. He wasn't appealing for release- for he had appealed to be heard by Caesar, knowing this meant yet more prison time. He made that appeal in order for the Gospel to spread; but he paid a great price for it, willingly. For his "chains" were a deep frustration to him. But he was willing to endure them longer, so that the Gospel could be spread on the very highest levels of the world in which he lived. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the king rose up and the governor and Bernice and they that sat with them</em>-</p><p> The rising up of the judge was to signal that the proceedings were over. We are left with the impression that there was no summing up speech by the judge; just a hasty and abrupt end to the proceedings, with Paul having had the last word in :29, in appealing for conversion. The abrupt ending of the court proceedings is a powerful testimony to the power of Paul's witness. He had so touched the consciences of his judges that the trial was ended in a moment. Surely no other accused person has ever achieved anything like this in human history; bearing in mind that his judges were the most powerful political rulers in his area.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had withdrawn, they spoke to each other, saying: This man does nothing worthy of death or of imprisonment</em>-</p><p> We can imagine them chatting things over later that evening, over coffee [or whatever], as it were. Again Luke is making the point that Paul chose to appeal to Caesar because he wanted to visit Rome in order to witness to the Gospel there, and perhaps he had some idea of getting Christianity legally recognized as a religion just as Judaism was. Perhaps we should give due weight to the present tense, "does nothing"; there obviously had to be some reason given in the documentation accompanying Paul's case, but the reasons given would have to result to alleged past behaviour rather than anything ongoing. The anti-Christian legislation of Nero was yet to come. Agrippa and Festus obviously didn't want their private chat with each other broadcast; and yet here it is, recorded publicly for all generations. Perhaps Luke initially got his information from Agrippa or a source close to him. Perhaps he became a secret believer. In 28:18 Paul speaks as if it were common knowledge that Agrippa and Festus would have released him had he not appealed to Caesar. Or perhaps inspiration beamed this information into Luke. He is obviously drawing parallels with how the Roman powers found no fault in the Lord Jesus, but Jewish insistence all the same led to His death. It could be another way of emphasizing that Paul's imprisonment and final demise was ultimately the fault of the Jews and not the Romans. They truly were the great satan / adversary to the Lord's work in the first century- and are often referred to as such. The extended record of Paul's trials demonstrates that Claudius Lysias, Festus and Agrippa all concluded Paul was innocent; but it was Jewish envy and political machinations, therefore, which kept him imprisoned. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Agrippa said to Festus: This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar</em></p><p>- see on :31. Again the connections are with the Lord's death; Pilate was determined to set the Lord at liberty (<em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em> s:w:), but the Jews machinated so that Roman power was overridden. Surely Paul perceived the connections at the time, and would have taken great encouragement from realizing that his sufferings were those of his Lord. And we are to understand our life experience likewise. Paul was so frustrated by the "chain" of his imprisonment, and we are left to wonder whether he would have been better not to appeal to Caesar, not to force through the fulfilment of the Lord's words that he must bear witness in Rome, and allow the Lord's word of promise to come true in His own way and time. This may have allowed him a few more years of powerful ministry. Looking back at our own lives, we can see how the paths taken could have been so much more effective if we had not tried to force things through in our own strength. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when it was determined that we should sail for Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Augustan Regiment</em>-</p><p> The Beza codex adds that Paul was handed over to Julius the very next day after the trial before Agrippa. The theme of haste noted in chapter 26 continues. Luke uses the pronoun "we" very frequently in this chapter; the events clearly left a deep mark upon him. It is a fine testament to his loyalty to Paul that he continued with him through all this. Julius may well have been present at the trial before Agrippa; and none present there would have been unmoved by Paul's witness. Indeed, most of the centurions mentioned in the New Testament came to faith in Christ. The "other prisoners" may have been men condemned to death who were to die in sport as gladiators to entertain Caesar. Julius clearly realized Paul was different to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And embarking in a ship from Adramyttium, which was about to sail to the places on the coast of Asia, we put to sea; Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us</em>-</p><p> "Adramyttium" means 'the house of death'. We are set up to expect the account to be a parable of salvation- and we are not disappointed. Aristarchus had been with Paul throughout the two years of his imprisonment (20:4) and now went with Paul to Rome, where he was his "fellow prisoner" and co-worker still (<em><a href='B:580 4:10'>Col 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:24'>Phm 1:24</a></em>). This kind of huge commitment between persons is only genuinely elicited by our relationship in the Lord Jesus. The huge interpersonal commitment of Christian marriage is another example. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the next day we landed at Sidon; and Julius treated Paul kindly, and gave him leave to go to his friends and refresh himself</em>-</p><p> "Refresh" translates Greek which suggests he may have been ill. Perhaps Paul's weak health was one reason why Luke the physician travelled with him. This would have been Paul's first taste of freedom for over two years, having been imprisoned all that time in Caesarea. To get to Sidon in one day meant they had a very good wind- for it was 70 miles. The believers there may have been converted in the wake of the Lord's visit to that area in <em><a href='B:470 15:21'>Mat 15:21</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And putting to sea from there, we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were contrary</em>-</p><p> Luke repeatedly uses correct nautical terms in the account, presumably picked up by him from discussion with the sailors. The whole record has the ring of truth to it, as we would expect from the inspired word.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when we had sailed across the sea which is off Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia</em>-</p><p> Some commentators suggest "Myra" is another name for Smyrna. According to the Lord's letter to them in <em><a href='B:730 2:8'>Rev 2:8</a></em>, they were the only one of the seven churches to whom He had nothing negative to say. They were strong in the faith, although facing problems from the Jew who were of "the synagogue of satan". Paul's journey to Rome is characterized by meetings with other Christians all the way. Yet there is no mention of any such meeting here. Perhaps the situation with the Jew there was too explosive. Or perhaps he didn't know them personally, or for whatever reason, they didn't meet up; rather like Abraham and Melchizedek sharing the same faith but apparently not having much to do with each other in their lives although they were both genuine believers. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there the centurion found a ship from Alexandria sailing for Italy; and he put us onboard</em>-</p><p> How would a ship from Alexandria be sailing to Italy via Myra? It could be that there had been a major storm which had blown it seriously off course; and this was a Divinely intended warning to the sailors not to tempt providence by risking storms further. We see here how God works; He warned the sailors through Paul as well as through this incident not to attempt the journey, and yet when they insisted, He still worked through their wrong choices- as He does in human life today. And we can add into this nexus Paul's prayer for a "prosperous journey" to Rome (<em><a href='B:520 1:10'>Rom 1:10</a></em>). The essence of this prayer was heard ultimately, in that Paul arrived alive; but not in the sense that Paul had perhaps intended. And likewise with so many of our prayers. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when we had sailed slowly many days and had come with difficulty off Cnidus, the wind not permitting us to proceed, we sailed under the lee of Crete, opposite Salmone</em>-</p><p> The problems with severe winds ought to have been a warning that the wind of the Spirit was not blessing this voyage; but the sailors weren't perceptive to that. The continual information about the winds makes us think of how God makes His Angels winds / spirits (<em><a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Passing it with difficulty, we came to a place called Fair Havens, near the city of Lasea</p><p> </em>The fact Paul speaks to Titus with such authority regarding matters in Crete suggests he had been instrumental in starting the work there. For he is careful not to get involved in any pastoral work which was the responsibility of others, and he did not build upon others' foundations (<em><a href='B:540 10:16'>2Co 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>). His mission and vision was to begin the Lord's work afresh in each place- no bad policy for any true missionary. But when was Paul in Crete? The only time mentioned is during his journey to Rome, when they stayed for a short time near Lasea (<em><a href='B:510 27:7-9'>Act 27:7-9</a></em>), but because it was such a small place and not much fun to spend the Winter in, the sailors wished to sail further along Crete towards the larger port of Phenice (<em><a href='B:510 27:12'>Act 27:12</a></em>). It was whilst trying to sail there that they got blown right off course and ended up on Malta. It would seem that during the stay near Lasea at the inlet known as Fair Havens, Paul preached in Crete. It would have been no more than a village. And from that work there arose churches throughout Crete, for Titus was to "appoint elders in every city". They were pushing towards Rome, and so they surely would not have spent long at Fair Havens. And yet there is a strange turn of phrase about their stay there in <em><a href='B:510 27:9'>Act 27:9</a></em>: "Now when much time was spent...". The modern versions seek to avoid the difficulty by suggesting that much time had been spent on the journey overall; but the Greek really suggests that they had spent "much time" at Fair Havens. They hadn't, really. But it was a significant amount of time from God's viewpoint, because as a result of this witness, several churches developed. And the witness began in a remote village, a mere anchorage rather than a harbour, near Cape Leonda, from where they had to walk five miles to the nearest shops in Lasea, itself little more than a village by modern standards. And from that remote spot the Gospel spread throughout the island. This to me has the hallmark of the divine:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Since much time had passed, and the voyage was now dangerous because even the Fast was already over, Paul advised them</em>-</p><p> Pliny records that long distance sailing was supposed to finish on the Day of Atonement; and seeing that this was the only Jewish feast which involved fasting, it is likely that they set sail just after the day of Atonement (so the Greek implies). The Day of Atonement was on the 10th day of the seventh Jewish month. We can assume that they left Lasea (:8) on about the 12th day of the seventh month, just after the day of Atonement on the 10th, when navigation was supposed to cease. But three days later (:19), Paul and Luke were throwing overboard the loose tackling of the ship, in the midst of the storm. This would have been the fifteenth day of the seventh month; exactly when the feast of Tabernacles began. This feast lasted seven days (<em><a href='B:330 45:25'>Eze 45:25</a></em> styles it "the feast of the seven days"). During that period, Paul and Luke were probably fasting, and doubtless sharing in the fear which gripped that vessel. It was obviously impossible to keep the feast. The sensitive Jewish-Christian mind of the first century would immediately have picked up on this; and if he (or she) grasped the idea that these events were parabolic, they would have seen in this the powerful demonstration that in the ship of Christ it is impossible to go on keeping the Mosaic feasts:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And said to them: Gentlemen, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives</em>-</p><p> As noted on :6, God works with human prayer and decision making, even when it is less than ideal. The Lord had told Paul that there would be loss of life; but thanks to Paul's prayer, no life was lost (:24,44). Just as the destruction of Nineveh didn't happen, because God is so sensitive to human prayer and repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the centurion gave more heed to the master and to the owner of the ship, than to those things which were spoken by Paul</em>-</p><p> The owner was presumably being paid well for the journey and so was eager to get the contract; he therefore wanted to move on quickly, even if it was just down the coast a bit. "Gave heed" translates better as to believe or be persuaded by. Luke uses the phrase six times earlier, of how people believed or were persuaded by the things spoken by Paul. It could be that he is being presented as effectively disbelieving God's word as spoken by Paul. By the end of the journey, surely this centurion came to believe God's word and convert. </p>


text:
<p><em>And because the harbour was not suitable to winter in, the majority advised to set sail from there also, if by any means they could reach Phoenix, a harbour of Crete opening toward the southwest and northwest, and to winter there</em>-</p><p> Verse 12 in the AV says that their temporary harbour "was not commodious" to stay in, so they left, "if by any means they might attain to Phenice". Given the parable of salvation being worked out here, I just don't think it's accidental, or irrelevant, that this very phrase was used by Paul a few years (or months?) later, once he got to Rome and sat down to write to the Philippians. He wrote of how he struggled to know the real spirit of Christ's self-crucifixion, having counted all the things of this life as dung, losing them all so that he might know the real mind of the crucified Christ, "<em>If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead</em>&nbsp;" (<em><a href='B:570 3:11'>Phi 3:11</a></em>). The horrific memory of the shipwreck would have stayed with him all his days. Under the Spirit's guidance, he would have recalled the spirit in that ship, as they all set sail if by any means they might attain unto Phenice. That run down old town of 'Fair Havens', its name promising what it certainly wasn't, full of lonely old men sitting in cheap tavernas... it must have been some depressing place, to make the sailors take the risk of sailing further on in such unpredictable weather. We might be able to imagine or remember towns like that which we know. And that run down ghost-town, Paul said, was typical of how we should see our lives in the world, worth making any sacrifice to leave, if by any means we might attain to a better resting place. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the south wind blew softly, supposing that they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and sailed along Crete, close inshore</em>-</p><p> As noted on :11, the decision is painted in terms of refusing God's word as spoken by Paul, and instead seeing their own way in their own strength; they seized / forced [Gk:] <em>their</em> purpose or will, rather than God's. It could be argued that Luke perceived that Paul himself had rather failed in this area, and these sailors did likewise. The whole experience was to show the triumph of the grace of God's will over all human strength and device.</p>


text:
<p><em>But after a short time there beat down a tempestuous wind, which is called Euraquilo</em>-</p><p> This record of Paul's shipwreck is written in a way which is not just a narrative of certain historical events. All through there are phrases and ideas which connect with other Scripture. If you look at this whole story from a macro perspective, as it were half shut your eyes and just see the general outline, some bells should start ringing. There were a group of sailors, with an immensely spiritual man in their midst, caught in a freak, unexpected storm which threatened their life, filled with panic and desperation. Then the spiritual man stands up in their midst and inspires them with his words, and on his account they are saved by God and miraculously reach land. Our minds go back to the storm on Galilee, with the Lord Jesus standing up in the midst of those terrified men. And when we analyse the record in detail, we find this similarity confirmed. " A tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon" 'beat' (Gk:, AVmg:) against the ship (:14). The same Greek word for " beat" occurs in <em><a href='B:480 4:37'>Mar 4:37</a></em>, in the record of the Galilee storm. The disciples' comment must have been echoed by Paul's fellow passengers: "What manner of man is this…?" . Closer study of <em><a href='B:480 4:37-41'>Mar 4:37-41</a></em> reveals many links with Jonah's experience; and Acts 27 also has connections with this, admittedly different ones. </p><p>Euraquilo is also called Euroclydon, as AV. The Greek <em>clydon</em> is used in the Septuagint for the storm Jonah was in (<em><a href='B:390 1:4'>Jon 1:4</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the ship was caught, and could not face the wind, we gave way to it, and were driven along</em>-</p><p> As noted on :11 and :13, one feature of this account is the grace of God in saving people who have tried to force through their own path in their own strength. They were rendered increasingly helpless, until they finally cut off the ropes of their lifeboat / skiff and surrendered themselves completely to God's grace, casting themselves into the water [cp. baptism, in this parable of salvation]. They had to give way to the wind and be driven by it; and remember the connection in Hebrew between wind and spirit. They were driven to salvation by the Spirit, thanks to the prayer and witness of Paul amongst them. "Caught" uses the same word used in 8:39 of how the Lord's Spirit caught away Philip. They "were driven along", just as the prophets were driven along by the Spirit (s:w. <em><a href='B:680 1:21'>2Pe 1:21</a></em>). They could not turn their faces to fight against that wind / spirit. This is not to say that human freewill plays no part in the final equilibrium of our salvation. But on the other hand, unless God brings us to that salvation, we are too weak of ourselves to get there by a sequence of correct freewill decisions made from the steel of our own will. And in this case, salvation would be by works rather than grace. </p>


text:
<p><em>And running under the lee of a small island called Clauda, we were able, with difficulty, to secure the skiff</em>-</p><p> The skiff / lifeboat was rowed parallel to the ship in order to ensure that it was not going to hit rocks; for the ship was hugging the coast as close as possible. "Secure" is literally 'to become masters of'. The whole account reflects the struggle of human strength for mastery being subsumed beneath the power of God's spirit, driving people to realize that human strength cannot save. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had hoisted it up, they used supports to undergird the ship; and fearing that they would be cast upon the Syrtis sandbar, they lowered the sail and so were driven by the wind</em>-</p><p> "Driven" is the same word as used in :15; as noted there, the whole parable of salvation here speaks of being driven towards it, albeit through a terrifying journey at times. The theme of human strength and ingenuity failing them is repeated here- they had to hoist up the lifeboat. The supports or ropes used to undergird the ship were again their human strength and wisdom; finally, they did not save the ship from being broken up. </p>


text:
<p><em>The next day as we were being violently tossed by the storm, they began to jettison the cargo</em>-</p><p> The record of Paul's shipwreck is described in language which clearly reflects the LXX description of Jonah's sea voyage (here, these words = <em><a href='B:390 1:5'>Jon 1:5</a></em>); to suggest that like Jonah, Paul was also fellowshipping the cross. Paul made a supreme effort to fellowship the Lord Jesus, to absorb the spirit of Christ deeply into his own mind. God confirmed him in his efforts, by working in his life to give him circumstances which recalled the experiences of Christ, and which thereby encouraged him to do this even more successfully. The progressive lightening of the ship by throwing everything overboard (:18,38) is a clear link back to <em><a href='B:390 1:5'>Jon 1:5</a></em>. On the Lord's own authority, we can interpret Jonah as a type of Christ, who saved the ship's crew (cp. the church) by jumping overboard to his three day death (cp. Christ). Thus the boat passengers in both Jonah and Acts 27 represent ourselves, and their physical rescue points forward to our spiritual salvation. See on :34 and :44.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the third day with their own hands they threw overboard the tackle of the ship</em>-</p><p> "Tackle" is translated "great sheet" in 10:11; they were presumably using this in addition to the sail in order to try to get some control over their direction. And now they were without even that, and totally at the Lord's mercy as to their direction.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when neither sun nor stars shone upon us for many days, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was now taken away</em>-</p><p> One of the signs that they were nearing the end of their ordeal was that "neither sun nor stars in many days appeared":&nbsp; Now this sounds very much like <em><a href='B:490 21:25-27'>Luk 21:25-27</a></em>: "There shall be signs in the sun and in the... stars... the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear... then look up... then shall they see the Son of man coming". The parable of salvation is developed by all the references to "saved" (:31,34,43,44; <em><a href='B:510 28:1'>Act 28:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:4'>Act 28:4</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And after they had been without food for a long time</em>-</p><p> On the voyage to Rome, it was only after much "abstinence" (AV) that Paul openly preached to the crew and other prisoners- as if he struggled against a shyness in public testifying. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:510 18:4-5'>Act 18:4-5</a></em>. Yet as Paul stood on that cold, windswept deck, shouting above the noise of the wind, you get the picture of a man whose magnetism was fully effective on that rough crowd of seamen and prisoners. Such was his authority that a word from him resulted in them ditching the lifeboat; the only human chance of salvation. Once they did that, they were completely dependent on the spiritual vision of this extraordinary man Paul. See on :36.</p><p><em>Paul stood in the midst of them and said: Gentlemen, you should have listened to me, and not have set sail from Crete and gained this injury and loss</em>-</p><p> It is difficult for us to imagine what that fortnight in the storm was like. Verse 21 speaks of the "harm" [[NEV "injury"] which they experienced, using a Greek word which is usually used about mental harm or damage. They were deeply perplexed in mind and body. Their helplessness amidst the fury of those winds is brought home by the Spirit: "We let (the ship) drive... and so (we) were driven... being exceedingly tossed with a tempest…no small tempest lay on us (i:e. smothered us)... we were driven up and down in Adria". Our brief life of probation is described in widely different terms by the Spirit. Here we get the idea that it is a totally horrific experience, full of fear, first of one thing (e.g. of grounding on quicksands), and then of another (being broken on rocks). In other places our experience of life now is likened to a plodding on through the wilderness, in others to a short sharp battle, in others to the monotonous tramping out of corn by an ox, the patient waiting of the farmer, or the lonely, dogged endurance of the long distance runner. And in yet other passages we are promised a life of "all (possible) joy and peace through believing", dashing on from victory to victory, more than conquerors, caught up with the ecstasy of the triumphant march in Christ, all our lives long. We must see our experience of spiritual life in holistic terms, we mustn't just emphasize one of these aspects. The way these different aspects all merge together in our spiritual experience is, to me, one of the most wonderful things about a balanced life in the Truth. An unbalanced approach will lead to us doggedly clinging on to the doctrines of the Truth, rejecting any suggestion that there should be an element of spiritual rapture and ecstasy in our lives. Or it may lead to an over emotional, watery sort of spirituality which reacts against any hint that we ought to be gritting our teeth and holding on to our faith, fearing the ferocious satan of our own evil natures. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And now I encourage you to be of good courage. For there shall be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship</em>-</p><p> The way in which Paul twice encouraged them "be of good cheer" (:22,25) as they huddled together breaking bread is also quoting the very words of the Lord Jesus, in the same context (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>); and remember that Jesus also said those words when the disciples were struggling in another great storm (<em><a href='B:480 6:50'>Mar 6:50</a></em>). See on :34,35.</p><p>27:23</p><p><em>For this night there stood by me an angel of the God whose I am, whom also I serve</em>-</p><p> "Whose I am" was understood by Paul to be on the basis that he had been purchased for His service by the sacrifice of His Son (<em><a href='B:530 6:19-20'>1Co 6:19-20</a></em>). He may well have explained that to them. His idea was that as a bound prisoner, he was still serving his God, and therefore that God would protect him, because he was on a mission for Him. Even within apparent constricture as a result of the ties that bind us in life situations, we are still on the Father's active service. We wonder why an angel appeared, when at 23:11 it was the Lord Jesus Himself who appeared to Paul and encouraged him that he would surely bear witness at Rome. Perhaps the pagan mariners were more likely to accept the idea of an angel appearing, as a messenger of the gods, than to accept the direct appearance of the Lord Jesus to Paul. The focus here upon God rather than the Lord Jesus was perhaps in order to witness to the pagans in terms they could more easily relate to- which were to God rather than His Son. Paul's words here are surely alluding to those of Jonah in a similar situation (<em><a href='B:390 1:9'>Jon 1:9</a></em>). There are plenty of other Jonah allusions in the chapter. Paul realized that this storm was in a sense for his sake; even though it could be argued from a more human viewpoint that it was the fault of the misjudgement of the crew and owner. We too at times may wonder whether a certain situation is our fault, or debate whose fault it is. The answers are never clear; the question is too nuanced. Especially when God's hand is involved. And so here too, the storm was in a sense for Paul's sake, but also for the potential salvation of all on the boat. </p>


text:
<p>For this night there stood by me an angel of the God whose I am, whom also I serve- &quot;Whose I am&quot; was understood by Paul to be on the basis that he had been purchased for His service by the sacrifice of His Son (<a href='B:530 6:19-20'>1 Cor. 6:19,20</a>). He may well have explained that to them. His idea was that as a bound prisoner, he was still serving his God, and therefore that God would protect him, because he was on a mission for Him. Even within apparent constricture as a result of the ties that bind us in life situations, we are still on the Father's active service. We wonder why an angel appeared, when at <a href='B:510 23:11'>23:11</a> it was the Lord Jesus Himself who appeared to Paul and encouraged him that he would surely bear witness at Rome. Perhaps the pagan mariners were more likely to accept the idea of an angel appearing, as a messenger of the gods, than to accept the direct appearance of the Lord Jesus to Paul. The focus here upon God rather than the Lord Jesus was perhaps in order to witness to the pagans in terms they could more easily relate to- which were to God rather than His Son. Paul's words here are surely alluding to those of Jonah in a similar situation (<a href='B:390 1:9'>Jonah 1:9</a>). There are plenty of other Jonah allusions in the chapter. Paul realized that this storm was in a sense for his sake; even though it could be argued from a more human viewpoint that it was the fault of the misjudgement of the crew and owner. We too at times may wonder whether a certain situation is our fault, or debate whose fault it is. The answers are never clear; the question is too nuanced. Especially when God's hand is involved. And so here too, the storm was in a sense for Paul's sake, but also for the potential salvation of all on the boat.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying: Fear not Paul. You must stand before Caesar</p><p></em> The Angel was repeating the Lord's words to Paul of 23:11. We are left to imagine the Lord Jesus in heaven itself with the Angels around Him, aware of His words and visitation of Paul; and now repeating their Lord's words. I have argued earlier that Paul was obsessed with getting to Rome to witness to Christianity. And the Lord took on board that wish, and although the path taken by Paul to achieve it [through appealing to a hearing by Caesar] was not ideal, He still went along with Paul and would enable it, through all the trauma of the shipwreck.</p><p><em>And God has granted you the lives of all those who sail with you</em>-</p><p> As God gave Paul all the men who sailed with him, so we have been given to the Lord Jesus. Of those whom God gave the Lord Jesus, He lost none (<em><a href='B:500 17:12'>Joh 17:12</a></em>). This verse is clear evidence of salvation for the sake of third parties (as <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em> and often). </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore gentlemen, be of good courage.</em> <em>For I believe God, that it shall be even as it has been spoken to me</em>-</p><p> Mary was an inspiration to Paul in this (<em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 27:25'>Act 27:25</a></em>). The Angel spoke on God's behalf and Paul reflected on the memory of the words spoken that night, and believed. Perhaps the implication was "<em>I </em>believe God's word- and I am now asking you to do so also". Faith means believing in the Divine word of promise; if they could believe this word, then they should then believe His word of promise in His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>But we must be cast upon a certain island</em>-</p><p> The Lord's partial revelation of truth is not Him playing hard to get, as it were. He didn't tell Paul that the island was called Malta. He led Paul, as He led Abraham and ourselves, in baby steps. And this withholding of information wasn't because the sailors had never heard of Malta. Some of them would have done, for Valetta was a known harbour in the Roman world (as is evident from the fact that a ship called in there next shipping season, <em><a href='B:510 28:11'>Act 28:11</a></em>). It was the part of Malta they arrived at which was unknown to the sailors.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the fourteenth night had arrived, as we were driven to and fro in the sea of Adria, about midnight, the sailors sensed that they were drawing near to some land</em>-</p><p> The "But" shows that faith in the promise of Divine deliverance was being sorely tested; two weeks went by with no answer. The assurance of salvation wasn't given the night before they came near to Malta; it was given two weeks beforehand, to test their faith in the word of promise. And in essence that is how God operates with us; for His salvation is articulated to us through the words of promise to Abraham which were confirmed in the new covenant. The mention of "the fourteenth night" and "midnight" all recall the language of the Passover deliverance; hence Paul's invitation to them to partake in a breaking of bread meeting, in imitation of the Passover meal (:35). </p>


text:
<p><em>And they sounded and found thirty meters; and after a little space, they sounded again and found twenty five meters</em>-</p><p> This is exactly the progressive depth of St. Paul's Bay in Malta to this day; an impressive evidence of the accuracy of the Biblical record. </p>


text:
<p><em>And fearing that we should run aground on the rocks, they let go four anchors from the stern and wished for daylight</em>-</p><p> Given the strength of the storm, it might seem unlikely that four anchors could hold the ship. But St. Paul's Bay in Malta is characterized by clay and not sand. The account has every whiff of credibility. "Wished for daylight" could be translated "prayed for the day to come"- replete with latter day references. But the immediate reference is surely to their prayer [inspired by Paul's example, and praying presumably to the God Paul had taught them of] that the boat would not break apart that night, until the daylight came and they could see how they could best get ashore.</p><p>On that last night, the sailors prayed for the day to dawn (v:29 Gk:, RVmg:). "The day" is an idiom for the Kingdom in <em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>. This fits in alongside the many other connections between intense prayer and the second coming. If we <em>know</em>&nbsp;Christ, then we will long to share his glory, we will long to see his beauty with our own eyes. So <em>are we</em>&nbsp;praying earnestly for the day to dawn? Or are we just content with the knowledge that it will come, like a slow train coming? Those men prayed for the dawn so intently because they knew that if the winds blew for much longer, they just couldn't hold on, they would be swept away. They feared “lest we should be cast on rocky ground” (<em><a href='B:510 27:29'>Act 27:29</a></em> RV)- replete with reference to the parable of the sower. There are many indications that the body of Christ will be weak and sickly when he returns.</p>&nbsp;&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And as the sailors were seeking to abandon the ship and had lowered the skiff into the sea, under pretence that they would lay out anchors from the foreship</em>-</p><p> It was on the very last, fourteenth night, that some in the ship lost their faith in Paul. They tried to get away from the ship in the lifeboat, "under colour as though they would have cast (more) anchors out" (v:30 AV). The Greek for "under colour as though" is always used elsewhere in the context of spiritual pretence, especially in prayer (<em><a href='B:480 12:40'>Mar 12:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:47'>Luk 20:47</a></em>). Under the appearance of trying to make the salvation of the others more certain (by casting more anchors), these men were trying to leave the ship because they honestly thought that the rest of them stood no chance. Is there here some prophecy of how just prior to the Lord's return, some will try to leave the body of Christ, under the appearance of spiritually strengthening the rest of us? But the watchful Paul spotted what was going on, and somehow got them to abandon it. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 15:1'>Act 15:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers: Except these stay in the ship, you cannot be saved</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; This sounds like the Lord's words of <em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth..." . But there is a twist here in :31; as if our all remaining together in the Christ-ship is somehow related to our collective salvation. We see here the evil and collective damage of division, of trying to go our separate ways to salvation, thinking only of ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the skiff and let it fall off</em>-</p><p> As noted earlier, salvation was achieved for these men after all human hope was abandoned. As they saw the skiff drifting away from them, disappearing beneath the waves, they would have realized their only hope was in Paul's God and in His word of promise. We likewise are led in our lives to the point where all human strength fails, and we cast ourselves upon the Lord's salvation promise with total faith and trust. The record has much to say about this skiff, which functioned also as a lifeboat. They had trusted in it to keep them from hitting rocks as they hugged the coast at the start of their voyage; and now it appeared their only hope of escape. But they now cut off the ropes and let it drift away. There was no discernible practical reason for doing this; it was done in response to Paul's command that salvation was only to be had in the ship and not in the lifeboat (:31). </p>


text:
<p><em>And while the day was dawning, Paul pleaded with them all to take some food, saying: This day is the fourteenth day that you wait and continue fasting, having eaten nothing</em>-</p><p> As noted on :27, the emphasis on "the fourteenth day" was to draw connections with the Passover deliverance, on account of Moses (cp. Paul- <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em>) and the blood of the lamb. Paul was presenting himself as Moses and the meal he offered them was like the Passover meal. But he wanted them to perceive the power of the invisible slain lamb. The fact they had been fasting may have been because they were all desperately praying to their various gods, just as the sailors with Jonah did. The challenge to stop fasting to those gods and take the Passover was therefore a religious challenge to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, I beg you to take some food. For this is for your healt</p><p>&nbsp; </em>When Paul tells them to eat food "for your health", he uses the Greek word normally translated "salvation". The whole incident is a parable of salvation. See on :44. The gods they were fasting to (see on :33) could not save.</p><p><em>For not a hair shall perish from the head of any of you</em>-</p><p> I get the feeling that there are times when Paul consciously alludes to Christ's words, and appropriates them to himself. For example, here we read of how he promised them that "not an hair (would) fall from the head" of any of them, just as the Lord promised His disciples (<em><a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a></em>); see on :22.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had said this and had taken bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of all, and he broke it and began to eat</em>-</p><p> The uncanny appeal and authority of Paul is brought out when we consider the implication of this: Paul prayed in the presence of them <em>all</em>, all 275 of them, presumably mustered on the deck, and then solemnly ate in front of them, passing the food on to them. See on :43.</p><p>Paul’s ‘breaking of bread’ on the doomed ship in Acts 27 is described in terms evidently designed to recall the “breaking of bread” service. On the 14th night (cp. the 14th Nissan), Paul took, blessed, broke and shared the bread- all terms associated with the “breaking of bread” in a religious sense. Further, the word <em>eucharistesen </em>is used here in :35 to describe Paul’s giving of thanks, and this is the word elsewhere used about the breaking of bread service. This is not the usual word used for simply giving thanks for a meal, but has religious overtones. “I urge you to take some food” uses <em>metalabein </em>which literally means not to just “take” but to “receive one’s share in”- the same express used by Luke in describing the early breaking of bread meetings in <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>. We can immediately perceive a witness element to this “breaking of bread”. Paul was surrounded by people who were despairing of their lives, who had not eaten for some time either because of seasickness or from fasting to various gods for safety. And in the midst of those people he proclaims Christ to them through the breaking of bread, urging their participation, and thereby using the breaking of bread just as the Lord Jesus did- to draw people further into God’s plan of salvation. </p><p>The same Greek words for "break bread" are used in the healing miracles, where Jesus broke bread and gave it to the crowds (<em><a href='B:470 14:19'>Mat 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 15:36'>Mat 15:36</a></em>), and for how Jesus took bread and broke it at a meal with the Emmaus disciples (<em><a href='B:490 24:30'>Luk 24:30</a></em>); those two words are also used to describe how Paul 'broke bread' with the passengers and crew onboard ship (<em><a href='B:510 27:35'>Act 27:35</a></em>). So the evidence would seem to be that the meals of Jesus [which were open to all, sinners included] were of the same category and nature as the memorial meal known as "the breaking of bread"- for the same phrase 'breaking bread' is used (<em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:7'>Act 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>). The same rubric of taking bread, blessing and giving to the disciples is found in the feeding miracles as in the Last Supper, and in the Lord’s post-resurrectional eating with the couple in Emmaus- as well as in Paul’s exposition of the Christian “breaking of bread” which we have in 1 Corinthians 11. Mark’s Gospel seeks to draw a parallel between the Lord’s feeding miracles and the last supper “breaking of bread”. In each account, there is the same action recorded: Taking, blessing, dividing and giving out (<em><a href='B:480 6:41-44'>Mar 6:41-44</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 14:22-25'>Mar 14:22-25</a></em>). That same four fold theme is to be found in the “breaking of bread” which Paul shared on the stricken ship in <em><a href='B:510 27:33-37'>Act 27:33-37</a></em>, where we note that how he “gave thanks” is described using the verb <em>eucharisteo</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves</em>-</p><p> His repeated exhortation "Be of good cheer... be of good cheer" (:22,25) was taken to heart by them: "Then were they all of good cheer" (AV). And like a father with sick children, Paul got them, against their will initially, to sit down to a good wholesome meal. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And in all we were two hundred and seventy six persons on the ship</em>-</p><p> This may be a reference to some taking of an inventory of all on ship, so that they could work out who if any had perished once they got to land. Such a head count would have been the responsible thing to do knowing that they were soon going to have to issue an "abandon ship" order. But it could be argued that this was a lack of full faith in the Lord's word of salvation which Paul had shared with them. </p><p>The significance of 276 isn't immediately apparent. It is a triangular number, triangle of 23. And many of the numbers in the New Testament are also triangle numbers. But I have constantly drawn attention to the fact that this is a parable of salvation, and those in the ship represent the redeemed. I am therefore inclined to go with the alternative reading of 70 provided by the Western Text; for 70 is the number of the Gentile nations in Genesis 10 and the number of bullocks offered for the ingathering ritual. Joseph A. Fitzmyer explains: "The Western Text, MS B, the Sahidic version, and Epiphanius [310-403] read rather: “we were about seventy persons." This Western Text reading seems to have risen from a dittography of the <em>omega</em> on the dative <em>ploiô</em>, “ship,” after which the cipher for 76 was written so that it was combined with <em>s</em> (= <em>diakosiai</em>, “two hundred”) and taken as the adverb <em>hôs</em>. Other readings: MS A reads “275,” and MS 69, “270." (<em>The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible)</em>, p. 779). This also solves the problem of such a large number of people on the boat, which was carrying grain rather than masses of passengers. 70 people is a more realistic number of people for Paul to address and break bread on a deck in the midst of a storm. For they "all" heard him. There would have been logistical problems for him to simultaneously address 276.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship by throwing the wheat into the sea</em>-</p><p> They were now throwing away their last food, and the wealth they had. For the owner of the ship was onboard, and to lose the ship and cargo was his ruin. But this too is part of our path towards final salvation- to abandon absolutely everything, left with not even anything to eat, no wealth, just us, and barely with the clothes they stood up in as they crawled up the Malta beach. "Eaten enough" recalls the Lord's feeding of the crowds, also a form of a breaking of bread service. The hint could be that they were fed to the full; and we hope that they continued their faith experience unto salvation at the last day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when it was day, they did not recognise the land, but they noticed a bay with a beach, and they took counsel whether they could drive the ship upon it</em>-</p><p> The description of Malta as a “land which they knew not” (<em><a href='B:510 27:39'>Act 27:39</a></em> AV)&nbsp; is evidently similar to the account of Abraham going to a land which he knew not (<em><a href='B:650 11:8-9'>Heb 11:8-9</a></em>). The land was a strange” land, just as Malta was perceived as a “barbarous”, i:e. pagan, land (<em><a href='B:510 28:2'>Act 28:2</a></em>). As soon as it was day, we read in v:39, they grounded the ship and swam to land, reaching their salvation at daybreak. This fits in to place alongside the many links between the second coming and daybreak. The men somehow sensed ("deemed", :27) that they were approaching land. It is quite likely that the spiritually aware will have a sense of the nearness of Christ's return. Christ too referred to this when he spoke of how in the Spring we have an innate sense that Summer is coming; so, He reasoned, you will be able to sense my return. Now if we really <em>know</em>&nbsp;Christ, have a real two-way, ongoing relationship with him, as a pupil-disciple to his teacher-master, then we will surely have this sense. "They <em>drew near</em>&nbsp;to some country" really implies that they were being drawn near; the Greek word is always used elsewhere about the believer drawing close to the Lord. <em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em> is the best example: "Christ also hath once suffered for sins... that he might <em>bring us</em>&nbsp;(same word) to God". Now in our typology that would suggest that in some way Christ guides us into the Kingdom, helps us through the last lap. Watch out for other types and hints that this is the case. And talk about it to some dear old brother in his late eighties who’s known the Lord all his days:&nbsp; </p><p>And so finally, there they were, crawling up the shore on Malta, the waves breaking over their heads, the backwash pulling them back, but struggling on up the beach in the early hours of that morning, cold and soaked, perhaps with hypothermia setting in, but brimming over with the joy of their miraculous salvation. Now that is the picture, in this type, of our salvation. As we enter the Kingdom, we will be at our most bedraggled, the weakness of our natures will then be made fully apparent to us. "They knew not the land", only once they were saved did they know the name of it (27:39; 28:1). As Abraham went forth into a land which he knew not, so in many ways we do not know much about the Kingdom, our salvation. </p><p>The sailors [=us] even at the very end disbelieved the prophecy that the ship would be destroyed- for they sought to “bring the ship safe to shore” (<em><a href='B:510 27:22'>Act 27:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 27:39'>Act 27:39</a></em> RVmg:). Even for the wise virgins, the coming of Christ awakes them from their spiritual slumber. Unless the days are shortened, even the elect will be carried away with the ways of the world (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). If we can really see the spiritual dangers of the last days, if we can sense our real spiritual state, we will realize that we urgently need the coming of Christ, for the simple reason that we are all so weak spiritually that we will effectively lose our faith unless he's back soon. And in response to the elect's prayers, the days will be shortened. The Lord will help us through the final lap:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And casting off the anchors, they left them in the sea, at the same time loosing the bands of the rudders; and hoisting up the foresail to the wind, they made for the beac</p><p> </em>The progressive abandonment of all human strength and hope of salvation continues. They had cut off the lifeboat, given up their last food [the wheat] and now they loosed the bands which they had earlier girded the ship with, abandoned their anchors, and were now left totally at God's mercy unto their salvation. This is all a parable of the Lord’s ongoing work in our salvation.</p><p>We note the comment “To the wind”. The records of Paul's journey to Jerusalem and thence to Rome contains many references to winds being contrary. But at the very last part of the voyage to Malta, the wind saved them. It blew behind them. All the information about the wind must be understood in the context of the fact that the Hebrew and Greek words for wind and spirit are the same. The Spirit of God withstood Paul's plans; but still He saved Paul, and now the wind blew behind Paul to achieve God's way of saving Paul, even though his chosen path was not the ideal. The Spirit still enabled him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But striking a place where two seas met, they ran the ship agroun</p><p> </em>The desperate situation of Paul and those with him therefore points forward to an awful time of tribulation for the believers just prior to being ‘saved’ into the Kingdom. This climaxes in coming to the place where two seas meet (<em><a href='B:510 27:41'>Act 27:41</a></em>)- surely a reference to the judgment seat. There, it becomes apparent what is to ‘remain unmoveable’ and what is to be ‘broken’ or dissolved. These very same Greek words occur in <em><a href='B:680 3:10-12'>2Pe 3:10-12</a></em>, about the breaking up or dissolving of all things at the Lord’s return; and of the unmoveable quality of the Kingdom which we shall receive, when all other things have been shaken to their destruction and dissolution (<em><a href='B:650 12:27-28'>Heb 12:27-28</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And the prow stuck fast and remained immovable, but the stern was being broken up by the violence of the waves</em>-</p><p> Several times we read about them using the anchors. Then in :41 we read of the forepart sticking fast and remaining "unmoveable" . There are connections here with <em><a href='B:650 6:19'>Heb 6:19</a></em>, which speaks of the hope of the Gospel as "an anchor of the soul... which entereth into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus" . The idea of Christ as a forerunner, the firstfruits, is surely to be connected with "the forepart" of the vessel remaining unmoveable. As they crawled up the shore on Malta, Paul and the others would have looked back to that unmoveable bow of the ship; perhaps they went to see it the next morning, as it stood proudly amid the calmed waters. That sight would have stayed with Paul; perhaps the Spirit used that memory when it inspired Paul to use the same Greek word (the only other occurrence in the NT) in <em><a href='B:650 12:28'>Heb 12:28</a></em>: "We receiving a Kingdom which <em>cannot be moved</em>, let us <em>hold fast</em>&nbsp;" (AVmg:), as the bow of the ship "stuck fast" . This is all further proof that we should see the incidents of Acts 27 as parabolic of deeper spiritual things:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And the soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim away and escape</em>-</p><p> The soldiers had still not come to full faith. Paul had told them that God's will was that he should get to Rome; killing him at that stage was going against God's declared will. Even in the face of every evidence that Paul was God's man, they thought only of their immediate problems and fear of answerability to those above them if the prisoners escaped. The word translated "plan" is used by Luke of the plan / will to murder the Lord Jesus. But God's will was to again triumph over human will, as this whole account of the shipwreck demonstrates so often. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the centurion, desiring to save Paul, stopped them from their purpose, and commanded that they who could swim should throw themselves overboard first and get to land</em>-</p><p> According to <em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>, Paul was in the 'swimmers' category. </p><p>Paul's magnetism [which represents that of the Lord, whom he represented in this parable of salvation] is most clearly shown by the Centurion being willing to allow all the prisoners to make their own way to land, rather than allow Paul to be killed. Of course our mind goes back to how the jailor at Philippi was literally on the verge of suicide because he just <em>thought</em>&nbsp;that his prisoners had escaped (actually, none of them had). Yet among those 275 desperate men, there must have been some who secretly despised Paul. The Centurion "kept them from <em>their purpose</em>" of killing Paul. This may suggest that even in their personal desperation, some of the men on that ship were prepared to kill Paul, due to their own sense of inadequacy, and jealousy of his spirituality. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And then the rest, some on planks and some on other things from the ship. And so it came to pass, that they all escaped safely to land</em>-</p><p> Young's Literal Translation brings out the correct sense of <em><a href='B:510 28:1'>Act 28:1</a></em>: "They, having been saved...". They escaped safely to "<em>the</em>&nbsp;land" (:44 Gk:), symbolic of the Kingdom:&nbsp;As noted often throughout this chapter, the whole incident is a parable of salvation. "All escaped" suggests that there was a roll call, and the figure of 276 was found (but see on :37). Salvation by clinging on to planks and the tree trunks used to construct the boat obviously connects with salvation through the tree / cross of the Lord. The casting into the sea may look forward to baptism, through which final salvation is arrived at. Through so much trauma in our lives, much of our own making.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when we had escaped</em>-</p><p> Luke was on the ship. "Escaped" translates the Greek word usually used for salvation; there is clearly a sense in which the entire account of the shipwreck was seen as parabolic of the journey to salvation.</p><p><em>Then we knew that the island was called Malta</em>-</p><p> 'Land of honey'. In this case, the parabolic aspect of the shipwreck continues, with Malta becoming symbolic of Canaan.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the natives showed us unusual kindness; for they kindled a fire and made us all welcome</em>-</p><p> Reflecting Luke's adoption of the common Roman idea that 'natives', non-Greeks who had not been brought into the Roman empire, were typically unkind and aggressive to strangers. Likewise the beliefs of the Gospel writers about demons and mental illnesses are reflected in the record without immediate, direct correction.</p><p><em>Because of the rain that was falling and because of the cold</em>-</p><p> The record holds together internally in a way that only a Divinely inspired account could. For it was because of the cold, as it was Winter, that the viper had hibernated and was mistaken in its frozen form for a stick; and it came to life near the heat of the fire.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself onto his hand</em>-</p><p> An old man, probably with sight problems and / or various other 'thorns in the flesh', it was not for him to run around gathering sticks for the fire. And in their culture, gathering of firewood was the work of women and children. But we see so much about his personality from the fact he did so.</p><p>Before a fire (at the burning bush), Moses experienced a rod becoming a snake and a snake becoming a rod. The similarities are intentional, confirming Paul that he, a shivering old man with no dry clothes to his name, was in fact seen by God as being as significant as Moses. Paul's letters reveal that he keenly perceived the similarities between himself and Moses- especially in his letter to the Romans. He was now on his way to Rome; and the Lord is confirming Paul in that perception. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to each other: No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from the sea</em>-</p><p> The fact was, Paul was indeed a murderer, of Christians. The whole incident then becomes a testament to God's grace; he should have died then, justice would not permit him to live, he was in the grip of the snake of sin- but was saved by grace. This living parable was exactly what Paul had written to the Romans about grace in his relatively recent letter to them. We see here the Lord's providential action to help Paul perceive the living truth of what he had expounded in theory. 'Justice' translates <em>dike</em>, rightness, which is a major theme of Romans. Likewise the Lord works with us, to help us appreciate in reality the things we are taught in theory. </p><p><em>Yet Justice has not permitted to live</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:510 28:3-6'>Act 28:3-6</a></em> describes how a lethal snake attacked Paul, fastening onto his arm. The surrounding people decided Paul was a murderer, whom “vengeance suffers not to live”. Their reading of the situation was totally wrong. But Paul did not explain this to them in detail; instead, he did a miracle – he shook the snake off without it biting him. The Lord Jesus did just the same in relation to the commonly held ideas about demons.</p>


text:
<p><em>However he shook off the creature into the fire and was unharmed</em>-</p><p> Paul's calmness is wonderful. He truly believed the assurance of 27:24 that he would reach Rome. Paul's calmness may also have been on account of his belief in the promise of the great commission, that in discharging this, the Lord's people would be unharmed by poisonous snakes and would be able to take them up, just as Paul did here (<em><a href='B:480 16:18'>Mar 16:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly; but when they had waited a long time in expectation and saw nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god</em>-</p><p> We see again the fickleness of people; one moment, Paul was a murderer who deserved to die, minutes later he was a god, in their eyes.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now in the neighbourhood of that place were lands belonging to the chief man of the island, named Publius, who received us and entertained us courteously for three days</em>-</p><p> Inscriptions with this title have been unearthed on Malta.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery. Paul came in to him and prayed, and laying his hands on him, healed him</em>-</p><p> Word for word, Luke is repeating the descriptions of Ananias coming in to Paul, praying, laying his hands on him, and healing him (<em><a href='B:510 9:12'>Act 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:17'>Act 9:17</a></em>). Paul is consciously reflecting the grace shown to him at the time of his conversion, many years ago. We too need to abide under the impression of the grace shown to us- and reflect it to others all our lives long. The beauty of this incident is that it would seem to me that this reflection of God's grace was made artlessly and unconsciously by Paul. See on 28:10 <em>They put on board</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when this was done, the rest also that had diseases in the island came and were cured</em>-</p><p> Note Luke's humility as a doctor. He would have been far better qualified than anyone on the island, and he likely rolled his eyes at the hygiene levels and nonsense medical theories entertained by the folks on that undeveloped island. But he was left ignored- the folk came to Paul, and were healed better than Luke could ever have healed them. Yet his focus is all upon the Lord's operations through another man, Paul. Luke the professional doctor is left merely noting it all down, playing no recorded part in the whole scene. And his record never betrays a single hint of hurt pride at his exclusion.</p>


text:
<p><em>They also honoured us with many honours; and when we sailed away, they put on board</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'they laid upon'. It's the same word used for how Paul had laid his hands upon the father of Publius (:8). I explained there that Paul in turn had been copying what Ananias had done to him. And now, the people reflect the grace Paul had shown to them. This is the ripple effect of grace; the grace of Ananias [meaning 'the grace of God'] to Paul was reflected by Paul to the local people of Malta; and those people then reflected that grace to Paul and those with him.</p><p><em>Such things as we needed</em>-</p><p> The same word is used by Paul in boasting that his own hands had provided for things he needed, his "necessities", and also the needs of those with him (20:34). But now Paul is being humbled; as a prisoner, he can no longer provide for his necessities nor those of the people with him; they are provided by God by the grace of the wild pagans.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after three months we set sail in a ship of Alexandria which had wintered on the island, whose sign was Castor and Pollux</em>-</p><p> Their original ship was originally from Alexandria, so it is likely that the sailors knew Malta. It was only the area they approached which was unknown to them. As noted on <em><a href='B:510 27:26'>Act 27:26</a></em>, they were specifically not told what the name of the island was- in order to elicit faith. From Malta to Italy is not so far, but these other sailors wouldn't risk it over the Winter season; highlighting the folly of the sailors in attempting to reach Italy all the way from Palestine at that time. The twin brothers Castor and Pollux were the patron deities of sailors. Perhaps the fact is mentioned to highlight how the gods were unable to save after what they had all experienced. It was likely that images to them had featured on the original vessel that was lost; the spiritually perceptive would have realized that they really could not save. </p>


text:
<p><em>And landing at Syracuse, we stayed there three days</em>-</p><p> There is historical evidence of Christian churches in Sicily from the late first century, and we can assume that they arose from Paul's witness there during this brief visit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And from there, we circled round and arrived at Rhegium; and after one day a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli</em>-</p><p> This is all evidence that the journey encountered yet more problems. Syracuse to Rhegium is a straight journey; but they circled around to get there. The same word is translated to wander. From Rhegium, they had to sail north to Puteoli; but a <em>south</em> wind blew, meaning they were sailing against the wind. As explained on <em><a href='B:510 20:6'>Act 20:6</a></em>, Paul's journey to Rome was against the wind / spirit all the way through. God went along with his desire to serve Him in this way, but Paul made the way hard for himself and encountered consistent opposition, in one sense, from God's Spirit / wind.</p>


text:
<p><em>There we found believers and were encouraged to stay with them seven days. And so we came towards Rome</em>-</p><p> This is what true fellowship in Christ is about. Given the uncertainties of travel, they weren't expecting Paul; but he sniffed them out, and he stayed with them. We see the same spirit in :15.</p>


text:
<p><em>And from there the brothers, when they heard of us, came to meet us as far as The Market of Appius and The Three Taverns. Whom when Paul saw, he thanked God and took courag</p><p> </em>When some members of the Rome ecclesia (who were rather weak, <em><a href='B:620 4:16'>2Ti 4:16</a></em>) came to meet him at Appii, Paul took courage at the very sight of them; one gets the picture (from the Greek) of him seeing them, recognizing who they were, and feeling a thrill of courage go through his soul (<em><a href='B:510 28:15'>Act 28:15</a></em>; note how Luke says "he" rather than "we", as if emphasizing that Paul was more encouraged than he was by these unknown brethren showing up). Here was no self-motivated old brother, indifferent to what his younger and weaker brethren could do for him by way of encouragement.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when we entered into Rome, Paul was permitted to live by himself, with the soldier that guarded him</em>-</p><p> The same word in :3 for how once again, Paul was allowed as much freedom as possible, so that he could continue his mission as best he could.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that after three days he called together those that were the leaders of the Jews; and when they came together, he said to the</p><p> </em>One can only be impressed by the way that within only three days of arriving in Rome after an awesome journey, Paul began preaching by inviting the local Jews to come to him. He would have had so much else to attend to surely, quite apart from getting over the trauma of the journey. However, the speed with which he invites the Jews to him could also be judged to be reflective of the unhealthy obsession he had been nursing for some years to preach to the Jews in Rome. See on :20.</p><p><em>Brothers, though I had done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers</em>-</p><p> This appears to be presenting things in a way in which the Jews might be impressed. The fact is, Paul had taught against the customs [Gk. <em>ethos</em>] of the fathers. And that was why the Jews were mad with him. But Paul appears to come over wide eyed and innocent... and he may have overstated his case. Because circumcision was after the <em>ethos</em> of Moses and Paul taught this was not required for Gentile converts (<em><a href='B:510 15:1'>Act 15:1</a></em>); the Jerusalem Jews had specifically complained that Paul taught Jews not to 'walk after the customs' (<em><a href='B:510 21:21'>Act 21:21</a></em>). </p><p><em>I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans</em>-</p><p> We have to read in an ellipsis here; from [the hands of] Jerusalem [i:e. the Jerusalem, temple leadership] into the hands of the Romans. </p>


text:
<p><em>Who, when they had examined me, desired to set me free</em>-</p><p> This may have been an exaggeration, in harmony with his exaggerated statement of innocence regarding the Jews in :17. Felix left Paul in prison in order to please the Jews (<em><a href='B:510 24:27'>Act 24:27</a></em>) rather than trying to free him. If it were not an exaggeration, then Paul's insistence on going to Rome seems to reflect an obsession on his part, as often discussed in commentary on chapter 20.</p><p><em>Because there was no cause for putting me to death</em>-</p><p> The fact Paul died at Rome was therefore the more tragic, and suggests his insistence on going to Rome, despite the Spirit urging him not to, led to an earlier end to his ministry than perhaps was intended by the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar. Not that I had something of which to accuse my nation</em>-</p><p> This internal compulsion was from <em>his</em> spirit, and not the Lord's Spirit. It is the same word used about how he compelled Christians to blaspheme and murdered those who refused (<em><a href='B:510 26:11'>Act 26:11</a></em>). The obsessive compulsion he felt about going to suffering and death at Rome via Jerusalem was therefore psychologically a reflection of his guilt over compelling the Christians to blaspheme. More psychoanalysis of the situation within Paul on <em><a href='B:510 20:26'>Act 20:26</a></em> <em>I am pure.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, for this reason did I request you see me</em>-</p><p> The word translated "reason" as that translated "cause [of death]" in :18. Paul may mean that the whole reason he had appealed to Caesar was in order to get to Rome and preach to the Jews there, which is why as soon as he could on arrival in Rome he called for them. If only he had focused on his ministry to the Gentiles, and left the Jewish ministry to Peter, so much grief would have been avoided. He set himself the goal of preaching to Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost and Jews in Rome, capital of the world. And yet there were few Jews left in Rome- because Claudius had recently expelled Jews from Rome (<em><a href='B:510 18:2'>Act 18:2</a></em>). So again, as explained in detail in comments on chapter 20, Paul's whole mission to Rome via Jerusalem just didn't work out. The money he collected for the Jews in Jerusalem caused huge problems and may never have been accepted by them; the wind was against his sailing all the way; there is no record of any successful witness by him in Jerusalem and maybe he missed the Pentecost feast; and here he admits his reason for appealing to Caesar was in order to preach to Jews in Rome. But they had been chased out of Rome, for the most part. And according to 28:28, Paul is disappointed at the response of the Jews and tells them it is better to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Which is what he was intended to do anyway.</p><p><em>And speak with me</em>-</p><p> Paul realized the methodology we use with people can affect their conversion. And he knew that personal contact was by far the best. “For this cause therefore did I entreat you to <em>see</em> AND to speak with me” (<em><a href='B:510 28:20'>Act 28:20</a></em> RV). He called men to have a personal meeting with him, rather than just to hear the theory. Not just to hear him, but to <em>see</em> him… for we are the essential witnesses. Paul could have written to the Jews in Rome from prison, but he realized that true witness involves personal contact wherever possible.</p><p><em>For because of the hope of Israel</em>-</p><p> Or, "him for whom the people of Israel hope" (GNB). Messiah is certainly the Old Testament fulfilment of passages which speak of Israel's hope. Israel / Jacob's hope of Messiah was the hope of his life; "I have waited for Your salvation", 'Your Jesus', he commented (<em><a href='B:10 49:18'>Gen 49:18</a></em>). Jacob describes the Christ as "the stone of Jacob / Israel" (<em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>); Jacob's physical stone had been overturned, rested upon, set up and anointed (<em><a href='B:10 28:13-15'>Gen 28:13-15</a></em>); perhaps at the end of his life, Jacob thought back to that incident and saw in that stone a prophecy of the death and resurrection of the Lord. Perhaps he even saw that the anointing, the 'Christ-ing' of the Stone would be after its raising up; he foresaw that the Lord Jesus would be made the Christ, the anointed, in the fullest sense by the resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>). "The hope of Israel", or "he for whom Israel / Jacob hopes", is another title of Christ (<em><a href='B:510 28:20'>Act 28:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:300 14:8'>Jer 14:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:13'>Jer 17:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 3:16'>Joe 3:16</a></em>); he was the one for whom Jacob / Israel hoped. And his hope is the hallmark of all the Israel of God. It may be that Paul used the phrase with reference to Jacob's Messianic expectations, seeing that in the essentially parallel <em><a href='B:510 26:6'>Act 26:6</a></em> Paul speaks of the hope of the promise made to the fathers. Thus Paul saw "the hope of the promise" as being "the one for whom Israel / Jacob hopes" , i:e. Messiah (<em><a href='B:300 17:13'>Jer 17:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 3:16'>Joe 3:16</a></em>). Like Jacob, Paul saw the promises as essentially concerning the spiritual blessings achieved in Christ, rather than merely 'eternal life in the land of Israel'. His exposition of the promises in Galatians 3 follows the same pattern. &nbsp; </p><p><em>I am bound with this chain</em>-</p><p> As in 26:29, Paul's resentment about his limited freedom comes through. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to him: We neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor did any of the brothers come here and report or speak any evil of you</em>-</p><p> This total silence about Paul may have been because a person disfellowshipped from the synagogue ceased to exist, and was as it were dead and non-existent. But if they admitted that the sect of Christianity was well known (:22), then surely the name of Paul also was well known? They may however be responding in kind to Paul's rather untrue claim that he had done nothing wrong by Jewish customs (:17). It was surely axiomatic that if he had really done nothing to offend the Jews, then he would not have been delivered by them to the Romans.</p>


text:
<p><em>But we desire to hear of you what you think.</em> <em>For as concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against</em>-</p><p> If the sect of 'Christianity' was known empire-wide but we take on face value what the Jews say about Paul, that he was unheard of, then a rather different picture of Paul emerges than what many now hold. Today, the words 'Paul' and 'Christianity' go together, and he is perceived as the world's best known Christian. But we must not read back our current perceptions of him into the historical Paul. If indeed [and see on :21] what the Jews say about Paul is true on face value, then we are left with the conclusion that Paul was just a small cog in the large entity of 'Christianity'. The New Testament focuses upon him and the relatively few churches he founded, and records his letters to them. But Christianity was apparently an Empire wide force, according to the comment by the Jews of Rome recorded here in <em><a href='B:510 28:22'>Act 28:22</a></em>. Yet Paul was unheard of in Rome. Paul would therefore appear to be one of many missionaries, but the Spirit chose to record so much about him because he was set up as a model for all believers. However, there are good reasons for thinking that the total number of Christians at the time of Paul's death was not much more than 20,000. Paul therefore would indeed have been a significant figure within the community, and the blank response of the Roman Jews was therefore reflective of their view of Paul rather than of actual reality. Or it could be [and I am just discussing possibilities in this entire comment] that the actual words of the Jews are not specifically denying knowledge of Paul, but denying that the Jewish leadership had any issue with Paul.</p><p>“Spoken against” is the word used about Jews speaking against Christians; Paul has just used the word in this context (<em><a href='B:510 28:19'>Act 28:19</a></em>) and it is used elsewhere about them (<em><a href='B:510 13:45'>Act 13:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:21'>Rom 10:21</a></em>). So the Roman Jews surely meant that although the leadership had not informed them about Paul, they were aware that Jews everywhere spoke against Christianity. Luke is now ending Acts, and by saying that the church was "spoken against" he is connecting with how he started volume 1 of his work, by recording that the Lord Jesus personally would be "spoken against" (<em><a href='B:490 2:34'>Luk 2:34</a></em> s:w:). All that is said against the church is said and done against the Lord. The Lord Jesus is His church; that is a major theme of Luke-Acts. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had appointed him a day, they came to him into his lodging in great number. To whom he expounded the matter, testifying of the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> Paul must have been blessed with quite a large house to accommodate so many guests. Or it could be that the record is written from Paul's perspective; relatively "many" came. Bear in mind that all Jews had been expelled from Rome not long previously.</p><p><em>And persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and from the prophets, from morning until evening</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'the things around Jesus'. And thus we have again "the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus".</p>


text:
<p><em>And some believed the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved</em>-</p><p> But this is not the usual word used for faith. It more suggests an acceptance. There is no record here of any baptisms, and Paul hardly seemed to be encouraged by the response because he then quotes Isaiah's condemnation of Israel and turns to the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>So when they did not agree among themselves, they departe</p><p> </em>The impression is given that they walked out of the meeting arguing amongst themselves, rather than some of them rejoicing in any newfound faith. The picture is repeated in :29- they left, arguing amongst themselves.</p><p>After Paul had made this final statement: The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying- A classic explanation of the process of Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p>


text:
<p><em>Go to this people and say</em>-</p><p> Paul quotes <em><a href='B:290 6:9'>Isa 6:9</a></em>, which his Lord had also quoted about Jewish blindness; and he quotes it in the same way as the Lord Jesus did (<em><a href='B:490 8:10'>Luk 8:10</a></em>). Thereby Paul reflects the degree to which he had thought through the Lord's reasoning and made it his own- an example to we who read the Gospels in this age. This is the art of Christ-centred life; to see that the situations we find ourselves in recall in essence those which the Lord faced, and to respond as He did.</p><p><em>By hearing you shall hear and shall in no way understand, and seeing you shall see and shall in no way perceive</em>-</p><p> It was and is the whole process of engaging with Scripture which confuses those who do not want to understand it. This is why the Bible is so confusing to so many- it is written in such a way as to confuse those who do not come to it with a desire to understand and respond. Think too of the tone of voice in which Paul said this; he was willing to sacrifice his salvation for Israel's, and his heart's desire was that the Roman Jews to whom he wrote <em><a href='B:520 9:2'>Rom 9:2</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em> would be saved. And now he finally encounters them- what disappointment and sadness he would have had, and not angry frustration at their refusal to 'get it'. </p>


text:
<p><em>For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart; and should repent, and I should heal them</em>-</p><p> Paul alludes to the parable of the sower more than to most of the Lord's parables, and here he clearly has in mind the Lord's quotation of the same scripture in <em><a href='B:470 13:15'>Mat 13:15</a></em>. We have an insight into how Paul's mind took the Lord's words and the way he used Old Testament scriptures, assimilated it into himself, and met situations with the same approach.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, let it be known to you that this salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles</p><p> See on </em>28:20 <em>Therefore, for this reason did I request you see me</em>. Paul had earlier turned unto the Gentiles and given up with a mission to the Jews (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>). This was as God intended- Paul was to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews. But Paul had slipped back, and continued going to the Jews. And now in Rome, with his dream of witnessing to Jews in Rome fulfilled, he saw how wrong he had been. The Jews there were generally disinterested, and he realized again the wisdom of God's intention for him- to preach to Gentiles. And yet God still worked with Paul, for a few Jews apparently did believe due to his presence there. But the letter to the Romans reflects the fact that there were already Jewish Christians in Rome... Paul's desire to go and preach to Jews there appears even more on the side of the stubborn and the obsessive than anything really necessary in the Lord's service. "Sent to the Gentiles" uses the same words which Paul admits were said to him by the Lord at his conversion: "The Gentiles, to whom I send you" (<em><a href='B:510 26:17'>Act 26:17</a></em>). Surely Paul must have been reflecting that although he had now achieved his obsessive desire to get to Rome to preach to the Jews... actually the Lord had been right at the beginning of his whole ministry. He was intended to go to the Gentiles. And instead he had sought to emulate Peter and go to the Jews. It was too much for rabbi Paul to accept that illiterate fisherman Peter could convert thousands of orthodox Jews at Pentecost; Paul yearned to do the same and even outdo Peter. He so wanted to get to Jerusalem for Pentecost and then go on to the Jews in Rome. Now he realized that the Jews there were not that responsive, and that his mission really must be to the Gentiles. It was a shame that like us, he spent a lot of grief on things he could have avoided if he had followed his Lord's preferred ministry path for him.</p><p><em>And they will hear</em>-</p><p> The same words used about how the Gentiles 'heard' the Gospel in accepting it (<em><a href='B:510 13:48'>Act 13:48</a></em>); it was at that time that Paul had said he would turn to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>). It seems that he repented of his focus upon the Jews; but soon he was back to his obsession with them. That was but a temporary realization. The idea of the Gentiles 'hearing' is used of how the Gentiles 'heard' the word through Peter's preaching of it (<em><a href='B:510 15:7'>Act 15:7</a></em> s:w:). And it was this jealousy issue with Peter which seems to have been at the root of much of Paul's dysfunction. At the very end of his life, perhaps in his last few days, Paul writes of how at his trial he was able to make a witness that meant "that through me the message might be fully proclaimed; and so all the Gentiles might hear" (<em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>). This is the same word for "hear". So it seems that Paul went to his death believing that although he had been mistaken in focusing upon the Jews, the Lord was merciful to him, and he died accomplishing the mission the Lord had originally intended for him at his conversion- witnessing to the Gentiles, and them 'hearing'. </p>


text:
<p><em>When he had said these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves</em>-</p><p> This is the same picture presented as in :25. Paul at great length to earnestly persuade them of Christ, but they argue amongst themselves and walk out of the door disputing with each other, thereby side-lining Paul. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he stayed two whole years in his own hired dwelling</em>-</p><p> Paul, like many Bible characters, had access to wealth. Recall how Felix hoped to get money from Paul (24:26).</p><p><em>And welcomed all that visited him</em>-</p><p> That may sound rather unnecessary to record, until we observe that nearly every time the Greek word is used, it speaks of receiving people on a spiritual level. Paul practiced open table fellowship, welcoming all; at a time when it was obnoxious for Jews and Gentiles to be together in homes. This, for Paul and for so many others, is the sign of spiritual maturity- genuine spiritual openness to others instead of defending the exclusive island of one’s own territory and interpretations. </p><p>“That visited him” is Gk. 'came in unto him'. The same word is used of how Paul had gone in unto the houses of Christians to torture and kill them (<em><a href='B:510 8:3'>Act 8:3</a></em>). Now the whole story was reversed, by grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> But his letter to the Romans places the emphasis upon the reign of grace. He speaks of how grace "reigns", as if grace is the dominating, ruling principle in the lives of those who have now sided with the Kingdom of God rather than that of this world. Testifying the Gospel of God's grace is paralleled by Paul with testifying about the Kingdom- and he says this again in a Roman context (<em><a href='B:510 20:24-25'>Act 20:24-25</a></em>).</p><p><em>With all boldnes</p><p> </em>Paul saw the Lord’s “boldness” as an imperative to him to likewise be “bold” in preaching (<em><a href='B:560 6:19'>Eph 6:19</a></em>). We all find it hard to be bold in witness, and yet in this as in all spiritual endeavour, ‘thy fellowship shall make me strong’. A deeper sense of the presence of Jesus, a feeling for who He was and is, a being with Him, will make us bold too. Even Paul found it hard; he asked others to pray for him, that he would preach “boldly” [s:w:] as he ought to (<em><a href='B:560 6:19'>Eph 6:19</a></em>); and their prayers were heard, for in his imprisonment during which he wrote Ephesians, he preached boldly (<em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em> s:w:); indeed, boldness characterised his whole life (<em><a href='B:570 1:20'>Phi 1:20</a></em> s:w:). In passing, we note how Paul felt spiritually weaker than he was; he felt not bold, when he was bold; and we see how the admission of weakness to others and their prayers for it can grant us the victory we seek:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle-&nbsp;</em>Time and again Paul brings before us the fact he really is our example; thus he begins his Roman epistle with a description of himself as Paul... called to be an apostle, separated...", but soon goes on to point out that the Romans were "<em>also</em>&nbsp;the called of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:6'>Rom 1:6</a></em>).</p><p>Apostle literally means one who is sent, and is translated “he that is sent” in <em><a href='B:500 13:16'>Joh 13:16</a></em>. It could be argued that all who have received the great preaching commission which is all of us have received in essence the same calling and apostleship which Paul did- and he therefore can hold himself up to us all as an example, seeing we have in principle received the same calling which he did. He uses the term “apostle” in <em><a href='B:520 16:7'>Rom 16:7</a></em> concerning brethren who were imprisoned with him who were clearly not amongst the apostles originally chosen by the Lord Jesus. He says in <em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em> that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;have received apostleship because our Lord rose from the dead; because He rose, all in Him are sent to take that good news to others. And he uses the same word for ‘calling’ in :6, suggesting his calling and apostleship are to be ours.</p><p><em>Set apart for the Gospel of God</em>-</p><p> A reference to <em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em> where Paul was separated to go on a missionary journey; although he felt he had been separated unto this from the womb (<em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>). God has likewise separated each of us unto certain callings, but only later in our lives is this made apparent to us.</p><p>Paul was called to be a preacher of the Gospel, and yet he speaks of his work as a preacher as if it were a Nazarite vow- which was a totally voluntary commitment. Consider not only the reference to him shaving his head because of his vow (<em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:24'>Act 21:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 6:9-18'>Num 6:9-18</a></em>), but also the many descriptions of his preaching work in terms of Naziriteship: Separated unto the Gospel’s work (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>); “I am not yet consecrated / perfected” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>)- he’d not yet finished his ‘course’, i:e. his preaching commission. He speaks of it here as if it were a Nazarite vow not yet ended. Note the reference to his ‘consecration’ in <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>. &nbsp;His undertaking not to drink wine lest he offend others (<em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em>) is framed in the very words of <em><a href='B:40 6:3'>Num 6:3</a></em> LXX about the Nazarite. &nbsp;Likewise his being ‘joined unto the Lord’ (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:6'>Rom 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>) is the language of <em><a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a></em> about the Nazarite being separated unto the Lord. The reference to having power / authority on the head (<em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>) is definitely some reference back to the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 6:7'>Num 6:7</a></em> about the Nazarite. What are we to make of all this? The point is perhaps that commitment to active missionary work is indeed a voluntary matter, as was the Nazarite vow. And that even although Paul was called to this, yet he responded to it by voluntarily binding himself to ‘get the job done’. And the same is in essence true for us today in our various callings in the Lord’s service:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:2'>Rom 1:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy scriptures-&nbsp;</em>Abraham was a prophet (<em><a href='B:10 20:7'>Gen 20:7</a></em>) as was Sarah (<em><a href='B:230 105:15'>Psa 105:15</a></em>). In line with <em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>, Paul may have the patriarchs in mind here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:3'>Rom 1:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Concerning His Son, who was born&nbsp;of the seed of David according to the flesh- "</em>Born" is literally 'made'. Gk:&nbsp;<em>ginomai</em>, to be made, come into being- a nail in the coffin for the idea of a personal pre-existence of Christ. The same Greek words translated 'Word' and 'made' in <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> occur together in <em><a href='B:530 15:54'>1Co 15:54</a></em> - where we read of the word AV "saying" of the Old Testament prophets being 'made' true by being fulfilled AV "be brought to pass". The word of the promises was made flesh, it was fulfilled, in Jesus. The 'word was made flesh', in one sense, in that the Lord Jesus was "<em>made</em>... of the seed of David according to the&nbsp;<em>flesh</em>" (<em><a href='B:520 1:3'>Rom 1:3</a></em>)- i:e. God's word of promise to David was fulfilled in the fleshly person of Jesus. The Greek words for "made" and "flesh" only occur together in these two places- as if <em><a href='B:520 1:3'>Rom 1:3</a></em> is interpreting <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em> for us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord-&nbsp;</em>More strictly, “the resurrection&nbsp;<em>of</em>&nbsp;the dead”. “From” would require&nbsp;<em>ek</em>&nbsp;, which isn’t present. The Lord’s resurrection is in this sense ours, and ours is his. There is in this sense only one resurrection- that of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Through whom we received grace and apostleship- '</em>We'&nbsp;is usually used by Paul in Romans regarding him plus his readership, i:e. all of us. We are all sent ones, apostles- see on <em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>To obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name's sake</em>-</p><p> A reference to the great commission, which was enabled and necessitated by the Lord’s resurrection. John speaks of preachers going forth to preach for His Name’s sake (<em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>). We are not to merely inform them, but preach aiming towards a response- our apostleship, our being sent ones, is “for”,&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, elsewhere translated “to the intent that”. We should preach towards a response, expecting the ultimate obedience of at least some of our audience. In <em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em> Paul specifically associates obedience s:w. to the Gospel with baptism- this should be our initial aim and focus in witness. Peter likely does the same in <em><a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:22'>1Pe 1:22</a></em>.</p><p>Paul makes a number of allusions to the great commission, in which he applies it to both himself and also to us all. The weak argument that it was ‘only for the disciples who heard it’ evaporates when it is accepted that Paul wasn’t one of the 12, and yet the commission applies to him. <em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em> RV is an example: “…through whom we have received grace and apostleship, for the obedience to the faith among all the nations, for his name’s sake”. These words are packed with allusion to the great commission. And Paul is not in the habit of using the ‘royal we’ to refer solely to himself. He clearly sees all his readers as sharing in just the same calling. The early preachers travelled around “for his name’s sake” (<em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>), even though they were not in the original band of disciples. Having alluded to the great commission, Paul goes on in this context to rejoice “that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world” (<em><a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a></em> RV). He saw their example of faith in practice as being the witness that fulfilled the great commission; and goes on to speak of his sense of debt to spread the word to literally all men, hence his interest in preaching at Rome (<em><a href='B:520 1:14-15'>Rom 1:14-15</a></em>). And here we have our example; “as much as in me is”, we should each say, we are ready to spread the Gospel as far as lies in our power to do so.</p><p>Collective societies are all about submission and obedience to those above you in the hierarchy- yet repeatedly, Christians are exhorted to be obedient and submissive to the Lord Jesus and the new community in Him (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:16-17'>Rom 6:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em> etc:). And even within the new community, Paul's own example showed that acceptance in the eyes of those who appear to be the pillars of the society of Christ is also of little ultimate value if they have fallen away from the understanding of grace (<em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em>). To keep using the word "radical" doesn't do justice to the colossal change in worldview that was required on conversion to Christ. Reflecting on all this, it seems to me that the reason the Jewish people crucified their Messiah was above all because He so powerfully turned their whole worldviews upside down- and they just couldn't handle it, just as so many families today turn against the one who truly turns to Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:6'>Rom 1:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Among whom are you also called to be Jesus Christ's-&nbsp;</em>We are also called to be apostles- see on <em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> “To all” means not just the leadership. Paul valued everyone, including the illiterate majority of the ecclesia to whom the letter would be read out loud, and upon whom the complexity and depth of much of his argument in this letter would likely have been lost.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>First</em>-</p><p> the most important thing for Paul was that those he had expended spiritual effort for were strong in the faith. We sense the same in John’s letters of 2 and 3 John. Our focus should be on helping others reach the Kingdom.</p><p><em>I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world-&nbsp;</em>The fact we praise God and come directly to Him&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, through the Lord Jesus, does not mean that our words come to the Father through the Son as if He were a sieve or telephone line. We come direct to the Father&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, on account of, for the sake of, the work Christ achieved. The following are a few of many examples which give the flavour of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>: John was put in prison&nbsp;<em>dia Herodias</em>, for the sake of Herodias (<em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>); the Pharisees transgressed the commandment of God&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, on account of, through, their tradition (<em><a href='B:470 15:3'>Mat 15:3</a></em>); the disciples couldn't heal&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, for the sake of, their unbelief (<em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>); the Angels of the "little ones"&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;, for their sakes, behold the face of the Father (<em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em>); because the Pharisees pretended to be pious they would&nbsp;<em>dia</em>, on this account, receive greater condemnation (<em><a href='B:470 23:14'>Mat 23:14</a></em>); the faithful will be persecuted&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;, for the sake of, Christ's name (<em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em>);&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;the elect's sake, on their account, the days will be shortened (<em><a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a></em>). "I thank my God&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;(through) Jesus Christ my Lord" (<em><a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a></em>) doesn't therefore necessarily mean that Paul prays to God 'through' the Lord Jesus as some kind of connecting tunnel; he thanks God on account of, for the sake of Christ. The very same Greek construction occurs a few chapters later: "Who shall deliver me…? I thank God, through Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:520 7:24-25'>Rom 7:24-25</a></em>). He thanks God that his deliverance is possible on account of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of His Son</em>-</p><p> Frequently Paul uses the word "Gospel" as meaning 'the preaching of the Gospel'; the Gospel is in itself something which&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;be preached if we really have it (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:25'>Rom 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:5'>Phi 1:5</a></em> (NIV),12; <em><a href='B:520 2:22'>Rom 2:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:5'>1Th 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:2'>1Th 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:14'>2Th 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a></em>). The fact we have been given the Gospel is in itself an imperative to preach it. “When I came to Troas for the Gospel of Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 2:12'>2Co 2:12</a></em> RV) has the ellipsis supplied in the AV: “to preach Christ’s Gospel” although there is no Greek word in the original there matching ‘preach’ .</p><p><em>How unceasingly I make mention of you, always in my prayers</em>-</p><p> The idea of the Greek word is of remembrance. Paul was bringing others to remembrance before God. Paul is surely alluding to <em><a href='B:290 62:6-7'>Isa 62:6-7</a></em>: “On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen; all the day and all the night they shall never be silent. You who put the LORD in remembrance, take no rest, and give him no rest until he establishes Jerusalem and makes it a praise in the earth”. Paul saw the Gentile believers in Rome as spiritual Jerusalem. It’s not that God forgets and needs reminding, but rather that by our prayers for others we as it were focus His special attention upon them. Paul several times states that he is day and night, continually in prayer for others. He likely had the Isaiah passage in mind; his brethren in Christ were now for him the Jerusalem upon whom his hopes were set, rather than upon the physical city as had been the case in Judaism.</p><p>There is a mutuality between God and His children in prayer. We ‘make mention’ of things to God (<em><a href='B:520 1:9'>Rom 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:16'>Eph 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:2'>1Th 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:4'>Phm 1:4</a></em>). The Greek word used has the idea of bringing to mind, or remembering things to God. And He in response ‘remembers’ prayer when He answers it (<em><a href='B:490 1:54'>Luk 1:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:72'>Luk 1:72</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:31'>Act 10:31</a></em> s:w:). What we bring to our mind in prayer, we bring to His mind. Those who pray for Jerusalem “keep not silence”- and therefore they give God “no rest” (<em><a href='B:290 62:6-7'>Isa 62:6-7</a></em>). But the Hebrew word for “keep not silence” and for ‘give no rest’ is one and the same There’s a clear play on words here. If we give ourselves no rest in prayer, then we give God no rest. His Spirit or mind becomes our spirit or mind, and vice versa. And hence the telling comments in Romans 8 about our spirit / mind being mediated to God in prayer through Jesus, in His role as ‘the Lord the Spirit’ (<em><a href='B:520 8:26-27'>Rom 8:26-27</a></em>). Yet God Himself had stated that He will not rest nor hold His peace for Zion’s sake (<em><a href='B:290 62:1'>Isa 62:1</a></em>). Yet His doing this is conditional upon His prayerful people not allowing Him to rest due to their prayers.</p><p>“Unceasingly... always”&nbsp;is a double repetition to emphasize how constant was Paul’s prayer for others. In case it seemed he was exaggerating, he calls God as a witness. His prayerfulness- the hours spent on his knees and the amount of mental energy in daily life- was amazing, and inspirational.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:10'>Rom 1:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Making request, if by any means now at length I may succeed by the will of God to come to you-&nbsp;</em>Or, "A prosperous journey<em>":&nbsp;</em>Realize that prayer may be answered in totally unexpected ways. Paul prayed that he would have "a prosperous journey" in coming to see the Romans (<em><a href='B:520 1:10'>Rom 1:10</a></em>). Little could he have realized, sitting in Corinth as he wrote, that the answer would involve many months of imprisonment in Jerusalem, a shipwreck that lead to an ecclesia in Malta… and so much other grief. But from God's viewpoint, the prayer was answered. See on <em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>.</p><p>Paul felt that his prayers could influence or at least engage with God’s will; he prayed that he might at some time Gk. be helped by God on the road AV “have a prosperous journey” to visit the Roman believer. He asks this not ‘If it be God’s will’ but he asks this might be so&nbsp;<em>en</em>&nbsp;or in the will of God. He didn’t see God’s will as something to be passively accepted but rather engaged with in prayer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:11'>Rom 1:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you-&nbsp;</em>Paul so longed (the Greek is very intense, s:w. “lust”) to see the Romans so that he could give them some spiritual gift. Why was his physical presence so necessary in order to give this gift? Perhaps he refers to a literal laying on of hands which would’ve been necessary to impart the Spirit gifts? But that gift was so that they might be “established”, confirmed and set in their way. Was there, therefore, a gift of spiritual confirmation which could only be given by the literal physical presence of Paul? Or was the miraculous gift he intended to impart intended to be a part of establishing them as group?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:12'>Rom 1:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That is: that I with you may be comforted in you</em>-</p><p> Some manuscripts add “However”. Paul didn’t want it to appear that he was viewing himself as superior to them in imparting a spiritual gift to them, so he goes on to speak of how spiritual strengthening is a mutual experience in which he also would benefit from them.</p><p><em>Each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine-&nbsp;</em>The mutual faith, which&nbsp;seems to suggest that their strength of faith would affect Paul’s faith and his faith would affect theirs. Hence the value of positive spiritual fellowship in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:13'>Rom 1:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that oftentimes I intended to come to you (but have so far been hindered), that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> “Hindered” is&nbsp;s:w. ‘forbid’ in <em><a href='B:510 16:6'>Act 16:6</a></em>, where he was forbidden to preach in Asia. It seems Paul often worked against situations where He was forbidden to go somewhere- he still preached in Asia, still went up to Jerusalem, and still insisted on going to Rome. See on <em><a href='B:520 1:15'>Rom 1:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I am debtor-&nbsp;</em>Paul had a debt to preach to all men. But a debt implies he had been given something; and it was not from “all men”, but rather from Christ. Because the Lord gave us the riches of His self-sacrifice, we thereby are indebted&nbsp;<em>to Him</em>; and yet this debt has been transmuted into a debt to preach to all humanity. Reflection upon His cross should elicit in us too an upwelling of pure gratitude towards Him, a Christ-centeredness, an awkwardness as we realise that this Man loved us more than we love Him... and yet within our sense of debt to Him, of ineffable, unpayable debt, of real debt, a debt infinite and never to be forgotten, we will have the basis for personal response to Him as a person, to a knowing of Him and a loving of Him, and a serving of Him in response. If we feel and know this, we cannot&nbsp;but preach the cross of Christ:&nbsp; In <em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em> Paul speaks of his “debt” to preach to both “Greeks and Barbarians” as the reason for his planned trip to Rome- for in that city there was the widest collection of “Greeks and Barbarians”. And yet he later speaks of our ‘debt’ Gk. to love one another (<em><a href='B:520 13:8'>Rom 13:8</a></em>). The debt of love that we feel on reflecting upon our unpayable debt to the Father and Son is partly an unending ‘debt’ to loving share the Gospel of grace with others, to forgive the ‘debts’ of others’ sins against us. We have a debt to preach to the world; we are their debtors, and yet this isn't how we often see it (<em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>). Time and again we commit sins of omission here.</p><p><em>Both to Greeks and Barbarians</em>-</p><p> Paul felt a debt to preach to them, the total savages from his perspective. And so on the way to Rome, God arranged for him to be shipwrecked on Malta, and thus meet and convert such Barbarians- for the word occurs only four other times in the NT and two of them are in describing the people whom Paul met on Malta (<em><a href='B:510 28:2'>Act 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:4'>Act 28:4</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:520 1:10'>Rom 1:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>Both to the wise and to the foolish</em>-</p><p> the Greek word is elsewhere always translated “fools” in the AV, and has the idea of stupidity, foolishness. Paul the intellectual felt a debt to preach to those who would have exasperated and irritated him in normal life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:15'>Rom 1:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'As much as is in me'. A window into the totality of Paul’s desire to spread the Gospel and upbuild the believers. But the phrase could also indicate an obsession with going to Rome, as was noted by Agrippa (<em><a href='B:510 26:32'>Act 26:32</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:520 1:13'>Rom 1:13</a></em>. The “you” in the context is the believers in Rome. Paul wanted to build them up in their faith on the basis of the preaching of the basic doctrines of the Gospel. Thus there is a special emphasis in this letter on the implications of basic doctrine, as explained in our introduction to the letter on <em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p>The doctrines of the Gospel are power to all those who have already believed. Paul was going to Rome to visit the believers, and wanted to upbuild them by discussing the doctrines of the Gospel with them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God to salvation to everyone that believes- to the Jew first and also to the Greek-&nbsp;</em>Paul knew that his salvation partly depended&nbsp;upon not being ashamed of Christ's words before men; hence his frequent self-examination concerning whether he was witnessing as he should. Thus when he declares that he is not ashamed of the Gospel, he is expressing his certainty of salvation; he is implying that therefore Christ will not be ashamed of him at the judgment (<em><a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:12'>2Ti 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:16'>2Ti 1:16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>). When Paul warns Timothy not to be ashamed of the Gospel, he is therefore exhorting him by his own example (<em><a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a></em> s:w. <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:12'>2Ti 1:12</a></em>). Note the theme of not being ashamed in <em><a href='B:620 1:8'>2Ti 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:12'>2Ti 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:16'>2Ti 1:16</a></em>.</p><p>Paul could say that "the preaching of the cross&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;(unto us which are saved) the power of God" (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>). Not 'it was when we were baptized'; the power of that basic Gospel lasts all our lives. To the Romans likewise: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ (i:e. I don't apologize for preaching the same old things): for it is the power of God unto salvation... for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith (i:e. faith gets built up and up by that basic Gospel)" (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>). The Galatians needed to keep on 'obeying the Truth' as they had done at baptism (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>); conversion is an ever ongoing process (cp. <em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>). It is "the faith which is in Christ", the basic Gospel, which progressively opens up the Scriptures and enables them to make us wise unto salvation (<em><a href='B:620 3:15'>2Ti 3:15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>For therein is revealed a righteousness of God</em>-</p><p> a kind of righteousness which is given from God, given by Him; and Paul will go on to explain that is “of God”, given from Him to us, by our faith in Him and in the simple fact that He has indeed given us this gift in Christ.</p><p><em>From faith to faith-&nbsp;</em>Having spoken of how the faith of the Romans is spoken of throughout the “world”, Paul goes on to comment that the preaching of the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God “from faith to faith”, or “by faith unto faith” (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em> RV). The righteousness of God is surely revealed in human examples rather than in any amount of words. Could Paul not be meaning that the faith of one believer will induce faith in others, and in this sense the Gospel is a force that if properly believed ought to be spreading faith world-wide? This means that spreading our faith is part and parcel of believing the Gospel. Whatever, there is here clearly inculcated the idea of an upward spiral of spirituality- from faith unto yet more faith. Faith, like unbelief, is self-confirming.</p><p><em>As it is written: But the righteous shall live by faith</em>-</p><p> the quotation from <em><a href='B:420 2:4'>Hab 2:4</a></em> is in the context of human pride: “Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith”. Paul is interpreting this verse as talking about faith in righteousness being imputed to us, which leads to us being just or justified before God. The practical result of this is humility- for we realize through this process that we have absolutely nothing to be “puffed up” about. Our uprightness isn’t because of our own works but because of God’s righteousness being imputed to us by grace through faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the anger of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men</em>-</p><p> it will be revealed from Heaven at the Lord’s return, and yet in a sense, judgment is now, God’s feelings about sin aren’t restrained or passive until judgment day, they are revealed even now.</p><p><em>Who hinder the truth in unrighteousness</em>-</p><p> Or, "hold". The point has been made that the Greek word for “hold” can mean ‘to hold down’ in the sense of repressing the Truth. But apart from the fact that Truth can ultimately never be held down, the word does carry the possible meaning of holding fast, possessing, retaining, and is translated like this in places. It could be that there were some in the Roman ecclesia who did indeed possess the Truth, but did so in unrighteousness- and thus God’s wrath was especially against such people. This would fit in with the impression we have from the other NT letters, including those of the Lord Jesus to the churches in Revelation, that there was serious, gross misbehaviour going on in the early churches- and Rome would be no exception. This group of people were those to whom God had shown the truth about Himself (<em><a href='B:520 1:19'>Rom 1:19</a></em>). The following verses go on to allude to Israel’s perversions in the wilderness- and they were a people who knew God rather than ignorant Gentiles. This group know God but don’t glorify Him (<em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>).</p><p>If we insist on understanding ‘hold’ as meaning ‘hold down the conscience of the truth’ on account of their unrighteousness (<em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em> Gk:), we can connect this with the statement that when this group come to know God, they darken their foolish hearts (<em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em>). And so it was with the preaching of the Gospel in Acts. Those who heard it were pricked in their conscience: some responded by wanting to kill the preachers (<em><a href='B:510 5:33'>Act 5:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:54'>Act 7:54</a></em>); others followed their conscience and accepted baptism (<em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>). We too have our hearts pricked by the Gospel- and we either effectively shut up the preaching, or respond.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:15'>Rom 2:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith</em>-</p><p> Along with the witness of God's law, their conscience also happened to agree with God's law about sexual perversion. <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> warns that our conscience isn't so reliable as to justify us at the last day; but in the 'natural' revulsion of the conscience against sexual perversion, conscience is a joint witness with God's law. </p><p><em>And their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them</em>-</p><p> Gk. '<em>logismos</em>'. The internal words, the conscience, accused or excused both are legal words the behaviour; our internal words 'bear witness' as in a court, for or against us. Judgment is ongoing; and we are at times our own accusers:&nbsp;</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:17'>Rom 2:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if you singular bear the name of a Jew</em>-</p><p> It's as if Paul is in the middle of giving a lecture and then suddenly addresses himself to one individual in the audience.</p><p><em>And rely upon the law</em>-</p><p> The Greek idea is of remaining. Again it seems Paul is addressing himself to Christian Jews in the Rome ecclesia who had chosen to remain in the Mosaic law.</p><p><em>And boast in God</em>-</p><p> As in <em><a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a></em>, a reference to Jewish glorying in having and obeying the Mosaic law. But Paul uses the same word another three times in Romans, about how "we" boast in our reconciliation with God (<em><a href='B:520 5:11'>Rom 5:11</a></em>), in the hope we have of salvation (<em><a href='B:520 5:2'>Rom 5:2</a></em>), and also in our humiliations which prepare us for that time (<em><a href='B:520 5:3'>Rom 5:3</a></em>). Our witness to others is part of this confident boasting about God's grace. But we can only confidently boast of salvation and reconciliation if by faith we have assured ourselves that these things are present realities, and not merely possible futures for us.</p><p>Paul's rebuke of the Jews in Romans 2 for their reliance on a mixture of worldly wisdom and that of the Mosaic law has many similarities with Job:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p><em><a href='B:520 2:17-23'>Rom 2:17-23</a></em>&nbsp;</td><td>Job</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Thou art called a Jew... and makest&nbsp;thy boast of God, and knowest His&nbsp;will, and triest the things that&nbsp;differ (AVmg:), being instructed&nbsp;out&nbsp;of the law;&nbsp;</td><td>A fair description of Job before his trials. Cp. Job's constant &nbsp; reasoning with God about things &nbsp; which differed from&nbsp;his previous concept &nbsp; of God; "Doth not the ear try words?" (<em><a href='B:220 12:11'>Job 12:11</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of&nbsp;them which are in darkness, an</td><td>"I was eyes to the &nbsp; blind" (<em><a href='B:220 29:15'>Job 29:15</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>instructor of the foolish, a&nbsp;teacher&nbsp;of babes, which hast the form of&nbsp;knowledge and of the truth in&nbsp;the law&nbsp;Thou therefore which teachest&nbsp;another,&nbsp;teachest thou not thyself?</td><td>"Thou hast instructed many ... thy words have upholden him that was &nbsp; falling... but now it is come upon&nbsp;thee, and thou &nbsp; faintest" (<em><a href='B:220 4:3-5'>Job 4:3-5</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thou that preachest a man&nbsp;should not&nbsp;steal... commit adultery…&nbsp;(worship)&nbsp;idols... dost thou?</td><td>These were the 3 main &nbsp; things of which the friends accused Job.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thou that makest thy boast of&nbsp;the Law,&nbsp;through breaking the Law&nbsp;dishonourest&nbsp;thou God?" &nbsp;</td><td>Elihu, on God's &nbsp; behalf, says that &nbsp; Job's boasting of his &nbsp; righteousness &nbsp; implied God was doing &nbsp; wickedly in&nbsp;punishing Job (<em><a href='B:220 34:10'>Job 34:10</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Their belief that they possessed such great wisdom led the Jews to be self-righteous, in that they reasoned that if they were wicked, then their wisdom would reveal this to them. Job and the Jews were in this sense similar.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:21'>Rom 2:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You therefore that teach another, don’t you teach yourself?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Paul was teaching the Romans. Thus the allusion to himself is clear- he who teaches others must teach himself, must apply to himself the principles which pass his lips so easily. He may be referring back to his theme in <em><a href='B:520 2:2-3'>Rom 2:2-3</a></em> - that we have a tendency to assume that Divine truths aren’t relevant to us personally, that punishment for sin and condemning others isn’t, actually, going to come&nbsp;<em>on me</em>, although we know it will surely come&nbsp;<em>on others</em>. And so Paul is saying that he too must be aware of this- that he places himself in the audience of those whom he is teaching. See on <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>You that preach a man should not steal, do you steal?</em>-</p><p> Stealing was felt to be a crime which could and should be openly, publicly rebuked:&nbsp;</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter</em>-</p><p> It was indeed a radical thing for Paul to re-define self-identity from the outward and visible to the internal and invisible. External appearances were and are what define a person, both within society and to him or her self. By becoming “in Christ”, this all changes- radically. “Inwardly” is the same word translated “secrets” when we read a few verses earlier that God will judge the secrets, the internal things (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>). This is what He looks upon:&nbsp;</p><p>It’s significant that circumcision was in any case a private matter. The Canaanite tribes each had various markings or tattoos, usually on the face or somewhere public and visible, just as some African tribes do today. It was immediately obvious that the person was from whatever tribe. God’s people, however, had a body marking on the most hidden and intimate place on a man’s body, which was not on public display. This in itself reflected how relationship with God was and is something intimate, personal and not immediately visible, in a sense, to the world around us. We who line up in a supermarket look, smell, talk and chose our shopping in a virtually identical way to the world around us. Our separation unto God is internal, intimate and not externally visible. Note that Paul has been talking about not judging; and from that he moves on to talk about circumcision. The connection is in the fact that we cannot judge others because we can only view them externally; God will judge the “secrets” (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>), the internal things, because the sign of our covenant connection with God is by its very nature internal and personal to the believer and God. We cannot possibly, therefore, judge others- for we see only the visible and external.</p><p>Circumcision under the new covenant doesn't refer to anything outward, visibly verifiable. For now "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter" (<em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>)- seeing we can't judge the secret things of others' hearts, how can we tell who is circumcised in heart or not? The 'sealing' of God's people today, the proof that they are the Lord's (<em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em>), is not anything external, but the internal matter of being sealed with the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>), or being sealed with a mark in the mind / forehead, as Revelation puts it (<em><a href='B:730 7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 9:4'>Rev 9:4</a></em>).</p><p><em>Whose praise is not of men but of God</em>-</p><p> We will be praised by God in that He will ‘go through’ all our good deeds, when we fed the hungry and visited those in prison (<em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>). He will rejoice over us, glory in us, in the way that only a lover can over the beloved whom He views through eyes of love, counting perfection to us in His eyes (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). This is the real meaning of being ‘Jewish’- for Paul is making a word play on the word ‘Jew’ coming from ‘Judah’, the praised one (<em><a href='B:10 49:8'>Gen 49:8</a></em>).</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:22'>Rom 3:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all them that believe. For there is no distinction-&nbsp;</em>God’s way of putting us right operates through our faith in RV, Gk. Jesus Christ, which Paul will later define more concretely in chapter 6 as baptism into His death and resurrection; for this is what constitutes in the first instance our believing into Christ. Whoever, any human being, who believes into Him will be counted right by God. And therefore “all”, “any”, who believe will be saved, there is no difference or distinction between them in terms of their being Jew or Gentile. The same word is used in this connection in <em><a href='B:520 10:12'>Rom 10:12</a></em>.</p>


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whom God set forth</em>&nbsp;-“Whom God put forward as a place of atonement by his blood” (NRSV margin) seems to be the right sense. The reference is to the mercy seat, not to the sacrificed animal. Vincent comments: “The word is used by Herodotus of exposing corpses (v. 8); by Thucydides of exposing the bones of the dead (ii. 34)”. The sense of public display is picked up later in the verse in the word “declare”. Crucifixion is by its very nature a public event. There was once a doctor in Paraguay who spoke out against human rights abuses. Local police took their revenge by torturing his teenage son to death. The local people wanted to stage a huge protest march, but the father disallowed them and chose another means of protest. At the funeral, the father displayed his son’s body as it was when retrieved from jail- naked, scarred from electric shocks, cigarette burns and beatings. And the body was displayed not in a coffin but on the blood-soaked prison mattress. This public display of a body was the most powerful witness and incitement possible. And the public nature of the display of God’s tortured son was for the same basic reason. “He was manifested, that he might put sins away" (<em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em>) could suggest that in His atoning death, ‘He’ was manifested. There God set forth Jesus in His blood, for all to see and respond to (<em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em> Gk:). There the real essence of Jesus was publicly shown forth. And there we come to know what love is (<em><a href='B:690 3:16'>1Jn 3:16</a></em>).</p><p><em>To be a propitiation</em>-</p><p> The Greek word doesn’t&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;to mean “mercy seat” / atonement cover, with reference to the ark, even though this is how it is translated in Hebrews. The idea is essentially a place of atonement or the atonement victim, the sacrificed animal. Instead of that place of blood sprinkling been hidden away on the top of the atonement cover, the ark of the covenant within the Most Holy Place which the High Priest saw only once per year, God through the cross set forth publicly, He declared, the place of atonement to be in the very publicly displayed blood of His Son. The public nature of crucifixion therefore was appropriate. The Son of Man had to be, therefore, “lifted up” (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>) so that He could and can be believed in. <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em> states that the Lord in His death was "set forth to be a propitiation". Graham Jackman comments: "Though the primary meaning of the word ‘set forth’ (<em>protithemi</em>) seems to be that of ‘determining’ or ‘purposing’, another sense, albeit not in the New Testament, is said to be that of exposing the bodies of the dead to public view, as in a lying in state". See on <em><a href='B:480 15:29'>Mar 15:29</a></em>.</p><p><em>Through faith in his blood, to show His righteousness in the passing over of the sins done previously</em>-</p><p> See on “set forth”. But the word also carries the sense of setting forth evidence, proof. The legal flavour could possibly suggest that the blood of Christ, His death upon the cross, is brought forth as a proof in the court case that actually, we really have been declared in the right. Whilst Christ’s death was multifactorial, it would be true to say that God could have saved us any way He chose, without being forced, as it were, to have a begotten Son who was publicly crucified. Maybe He did this because He so wishes us to believe, and He wanted to commend His love in all its depth and costliness as publicly as possible, so that we would indeed perceive and believe it.</p><p>God’s method of declaring us right deals with the sins “that are past”, for which we stand condemned before His judgment seat with no way to make amends; and also “at this time” (<em><a href='B:520 3:26'>Rom 3:26</a></em>), right now, we are declared righteous by status, declared in the right, if we are believers into Jesus.</p><p><em>In the forbearance of God</em>-</p><p> We shall all be saved by the forbearance of God, hence we should not deny to others the forbearance of God. Hence in <em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em> the same word is used, in stating that those who condemn their brethren are despising the forbearance of God, in that they are assuming that His forbearance can’t apply to the person whom they have condemned. If we are saved by God’s gracious forbearance, it’s not for us to deny this to another.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 3:26'>Rom 3:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the showing of His righteousness at this present time</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>.</p><p><em>That He might Himself be just</em>-</p><p> the whole process of justifying sinners is achieved without infringing upon the justice and integrity of God. Quite how… isn’t explained (although I am aware of many attempts to explain it, but they all seem to fail). I think we are asked to accept this on faith.</p><p><em>And the justifier</em>-</p><p> God’s plan of declaring us right takes care of our past sins (<em><a href='B:520 3:25'>Rom 3:25</a></em>), right now “at this time” declares us right, and will justify us at the coming day of judgment:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Of him that has faith in Jesus</em>-</p><p> It’s rare for Paul to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as simply “Jesus” with no title. Perhaps he is trying to bring out the simplicity of it all- that by believing in the very human Jesus, a man of our nature with one of the commonest names amongst first century Palestinian Jews, i:e. ‘Jesus’, we really can be declared right before God.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


