# commentaries

text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:33'>Rom 8:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who shall lay anything to the charge</em>– Again, legal language. Where is our accuser? Can anyone accuse us of anything? No, insofar as we are “in Christ”. The allusion is to the Gospels, to the way the Lord Jesus could calmly challenge: “Which of you can convict me of sin?” (<em><a href='B:500 8:46'>Joh 8:46</a></em>). If He could not be seriously accused of sin, neither can we. The records of the Lord’s trials are perhaps also in view here- for the accusers failed to produce any case which held together (<em><a href='B:480 14:59'>Mar 14:59</a></em>). All this takes on striking relevance to us, as we stand in the dock before the righteous judgment of God- and are declared right, without any credible accusers. This of course is only possible because we are “in Christ”. The only other time the Greek for ‘lay to the charge’ occurs is in the records of Paul’s own trials, where again no credible accusation was found against him (<em><a href='B:510 19:38'>Act 19:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:40'>Act 19:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:28-29'>Act 23:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:2'>Act 26:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:7'>Act 26:7</a></em>). As so often, Paul is reasoning from his own personal experience. He knew what it felt like to stand in court and see your accusers’ case just crumble before your eyes. He makes the point in his own defence that there is no proof of anything of which he is accused, and that significantly the witnesses against him aren’t even present in the courtroom (<em><a href='B:510 24:13'>Act 24:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:19'>Act 24:19</a></em>)- all very much the scene of <em><a href='B:520 8:33'>Rom 8:33</a></em>. And he says this is true for each one who is in Christ. God is the prosecutor- yet He is the one who shall search for Israel's sin, and admit that it cannot be found (<em><a href='B:300 50:20'>Jer 50:20</a></em>). God is both judge, advocate for the defence, and prosecutor- and this is God is&nbsp;<em>for us</em>, the guilty <em><a href='B:520 8:33-34'>Rom 8:33-34</a></em> develops the figure at length. The person bringing the complaint of sin against us is God alone- for there is no personal devil to do so. And the judge who can alone condemn us is the Lord Jesus alone. And yet we find the one ‘brings the charge’ instead being the very one who justifies us, or as the Greek means, renders us guiltless. The one who brings the charge becomes this strange judge who is so eager to declare us guiltless. And the judge who can alone condemn, or render guilty, is the very one who makes intercession to the judge for us- and moreover, the One who died for us, so passionate is His love. The logic is breathtaking, literally so. The figures are taken from an earthly courtroom, but the roles are mixed. Truly “if God be for us another courtroom analogy, who can be against us” (<em><a href='B:520 8:31'>Rom 8:31</a></em>). This advocate / intercessor is matchless. With Him on our side, ‘for us’, we cannot possibly be condemned. Whatever is ‘against us’- our sins- cannot now be against us, in the face of this mighty advocate. Let’s face it, the thing we fear more than death is our sin which is ‘against us’. But the assurance is clear, for those who will believe it. With an attorney for the defence such as we have, who is also our passionate judge so desperate to justify us- even they cannot stand ‘against us’. <em><a href='B:520 8:33'>Rom 8:33</a></em> states that there is now&nbsp;<em>nobody</em>&nbsp;who can accuse us, because none less than God Himself, the judge of all, is our justifier in Christ And so whatever is said about us, don’t let this register with us as if it is God accusing us. Not for us the addiction of internet chat groups, wanting to know what is said about us or feeling defensive under accusation. For all our sins, truly or falsely accused of,&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;is our justifier, and not ourselves. And thus our consciences can still blossom when under man’s false accusation, genuinely aware of our failures for what they are, not being made to feel more guilty than we should, or to take false guilt. This is all a wonderful and awesome outworking of God’s plan of salvation by grace. If&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;is our justifier, where is he that condemns us, or lays any guilt to our charge (<em><a href='B:520 8:33-34'>Rom 8:33-34</a></em>)? And yet in family life, in ecclesial relationships... we are so quick to feel and hurt from the possible insinuations of others against us. We seek to justify ourselves, to correct gossip and misrepresentation, to “take up" an issue to clear our name. We all tend to be far too sensitive about what others may be implying about us. All this reflects a sad lack of appreciation of the wonder of the fact that we are justified&nbsp;<em>by God,</em>&nbsp;and in His eyes- which is surely the ultimately important perspective- we are without fault before the throne of grace, covered in the imputed and peerless righteousness of the Lord. Paul, misrepresented and slandered more than most brethren, came to conclude: “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me right now is the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 4:3-4'>1Co 4:3-4</a></em>). The judge is the justifier, according to this argument. Paul is not justified by himself or by other men, because they are not his judge. The fact that God alone is judge through Christ another first principle means that nobody can ultimately justify us or condemn us. The false claims of others can do nothing to ultimately damage us, and our own efforts at self-justification are in effect a denial of the fact that the Lord is the judge, not us, and therefore He alone can and will justify. When a man is under accusation, his conscience usually dies. He is so bent on self-defence and seeking his own innocence and liberation from accusation. And we see this in so many around us. But for us, we have been delivered from accusation, judged innocent, granted the all powerful and all authoritative heavenly advocate. <em><a href='B:520 8:33'>Rom 8:33</a></em> states that there is now&nbsp;<em>nobody</em>&nbsp;who can accuse us, because none less than God Himself, the judge of all, is our justifier in Christ And so whatever is said about us, don’t let this register with us as if it is God accusing us. Not for us the addiction of internet chat groups, wanting to know what is said about us or feeling defensive under accusation. For all our sins, truly or falsely accused of, God is our justifier, and not ourselves. And thus our consciences can still blossom when under man’s false accusation, genuinely aware of our failures for what they are, not being made to feel more guilty than we should, or to take false guilt. This is all a wonderful and awesome outworking of God’s plan of salvation by grace.</p><p><em>Of God’s chosen ones? It is God that justifies</em>-</p><p> The reason why there are no accusers against us, not even our own sins, is because we are “God’s elect”. The supreme chosen one of God was of course the Lord Jesus, “mine elect, in whom my soul delights” (<em><a href='B:290 42:1'>Isa 42:1</a></em>). And yet later on in the servant songs of Isaiah, “mine elect” clearly refers to the people of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 45:4'>Isa 45:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:9'>Isa 65:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:22'>Isa 65:22</a></em>). The true Israel of God are therefore those counted as somehow “in” the elect one, the singular servant of God, Messiah Jesus. Those baptized into Him are therefore His elect. And how do we know we are “God’s elect”? If we are baptized into Christ, “mine elect”, then for sure we are. And further, we have heard the call of the Gospel, we have been called- so, we are God’s elect, His chosen ones. Of course the objection can be raised that the whole idea of calling or election may appear unfair. Indeed, the Greek word for “elect” can carry the idea of ‘the favoured / favourite one’:&nbsp; There is no ultimate injustice here. The chosen One is the Lord Jesus, beloved for the sake of His righteousness, His spirit of life. Those who respond to the call to be “in Him” are counted likewise. And all this is the way, the method used, in order for God to be the one who counts us as right in the ultimate judgment- for “It is God that justifies”.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who is he that condemns?</em>-</p><p> There are many links between Romans and John's Gospel; when Paul asks where is anyone to condemn us (<em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>), we are surely intended to make the connection&nbsp; to <em><a href='B:500 8:10'>Joh 8:10</a></em>, where the Lord asks the condemned woman the very same question. It's as if she, there, alone with the Lord, face down, is the dead ringer of every one of us. The legal allusion is definitely to the judge, the one who will pass sentence. The question is “Who is?” rather than “Where is?”. It’s not that God, the judge of all, abdicates His judgment throne and ceases to tell right from wrong. There is an integrity in His judgment. The answer of course is that it is&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;who is the One who passes sentence. The rest of the verse goes on to speak of the Lord Jesus as our intercessor at His right hand. The point is, that God the righteous judge is going to take notice of the pleadings of His Son, whom He gave to die for our forgiveness and redemption. The idea of condemning must be seen in the context of <em><a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a></em>, where we have just read that it is sin which is condemned by God, and He has already condemned it, in the crucified flesh of the Lord Jesus. “Sin” is condemned; we are not condemned. The point clearly is that it is our status “in Christ” and our disassociation from “sin”, as strongly as Paul disassociated himself from “sin” in <em><a href='B:520 7:15-23'>Rom 7:15-23</a></em>, which is the means by which we are saved, and not only saved but declared right.</p><p><em></p><p>It is Christ Jesus that died, yes rather, that was raised from the dead</em>-</p><p> This is said in the context of the comment that it is God who judges. It’s not that the death and resurrection of a person of itself can change the mind of God or lead Him to not condemn us, in some mystical way. We are saved by the Lord’s death and resurrection in that we can identify with it by baptism into His death and resurrection, and be counted as Christ, the Son of God. It is this which affects how God judges us. There seems to be a link made between the Lord’s death and the judgment in <em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>: “Who is he that judgeth / condemneth? It is Christ that died…", as if&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;and His death are the ultimate judgment. The Old Testament idea of judgment was that in it, the Lord speaks, roars and cries, and there is an earthquake and eclipse of the sun (<em><a href='B:360 3:16'>Joe 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 1:2'>Amo 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 25:30'>Jer 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 46:7'>Psa 46:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 10:3'>Rev 10:3</a></em>). Yet all these things are associated with the Lord’s death.</p><p><em>Who is moreover at the right hand of God</em>-</p><p> Note the double use of the idea of “moreover”. Paul is building up his logic towards the final crescendo- that we are in fact saved from condemnation in Christ. This is classic Paul. The death of God’s Son for us would be enough to persuade God the Judge of all. But further, He rose again; and we who are in Him are counted likewise to have died and risen again, as Paul has laboured in Romans 6. So, for sure we are saved. But yet further, God’s risen Son is now at His right hand, pleading for us I suggest that the sequence here of “Died, rose again, alive at God’s right hand interceding for us” is somehow repeated in <em><a href='B:520 14:9'>Rom 14:9</a></em>: “Christ both died and rose and revived”. In this case the “revived” would be a reference to the fact that He not only resurrected but is alive and active for us in mediation. In this sense, perhaps, “we are saved by His life” (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>). Being at the right hand was the position of favour, of honour. The point in this context is that if God so deeply respects His Son- and the theme of the Father’s genuine respect of His Son is a beautiful theme in Scripture- then surely He will be very open to the Son’s work for us. The suggestion has been made that the Greek for “right hand” is from the root word “to receive”, and in this verse the idea that Christ stands to receive is balanced with the comment that from that position He makes intercession or request for us His people. He is in the supreme place to receive- and He asks from there for us to be counted as in Him.</p><p><em>Who also makes intercession for us-</em></p><p>&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:520 8:27'>Rom 8:27</a></em>. We should not think that whenever we sin, we have an intercessor in Heaven who can gain forgiveness for us and set us back right with God. The whole argument in Romans is that we are “in Christ” by status and are counted as Him; all that is true of Him becomes true for us. It is not that we are in Christ one moment and then out of Him the next, to be brought back into our “in Christ” status by His intercession. For if this were the case, the implication would be that we were perfect when we were ‘being good’; and if one happened to die at a point of weakness, then we would be eternally damned. God’s way is more profound. We are counted permanently as “in Christ” by status, and in this sense we have already been redeemed, and are simply awaiting the physical articulation of that redemption at the Lord’s return. The imagery of the Lord Jesus as a priest offering Heavenly sacrifices is metaphor, and as such is limited. The position between Him today, His work for us, and the work of the Mosaic priests is not completely analogous. We do not need a Levitical priesthood because the Lord Jesus has replaced that, but this is not to say that He is exactly for us what the Levitical priests were for sinful Israel. For what, then, does the Lord Jesus make intercession? I suggested under <em><a href='B:520 8:27'>Rom 8:27</a></em> that the intercession involves a transference of our mind, our spirit, to that of the Lord Jesus as He sits before God. In this sense the intercession of the Lord Jesus for us personally has an eternal quality to it (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>) in that our spirit, the essence of who we are, continues in the mind of the Lord Jesus even after we die; just as the memory or spirit of those we love lives on within us after their falling asleep. We are eternally positioned before God, thanks to the intercession of the Lord Jesus. However, it cannot be denied that the Greek for “intercession” does indeed carry the idea of obtaining something. It is used here in the very context of stating that the intercession is made at the “right hand” of God, the place of receiving (see commentary above). Paul uses a related word to that translated “intercession” in saying at another judgment seat that he has “obtained help from God” (<em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>). Perhaps he said that fully aware that he in fact had a Heavenly intercessor, a true counsel for the defence. The same word for “obtain” which is part of that translated “intercessor” occurs in the context of our obtaining salvation and resurrection to life (<em><a href='B:620 2:10'>2Ti 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a></em>). It is this which has been interceded for and obtained for us by the Lord Jesus, seated as He is at the right hand, the place of receiving, of the Judge of all. In this sense His intercession has that eternal quality to it which we earlier observed (<em><a href='B:650 7:25'>Heb 7:25</a></em>). And yet even this idea, that the intercession is for our salvation, still seems to be a too simplistic summary of what Paul really has in mind here. The Lord’s intercession for Stephen in his time of dying was surely not simply for Stephen’s salvation. Rather it seems to involve a representation of our spirit, our deepest essence of thought, feeling, personality and life situation, before the Father; intercession for our salvation; and also for other things which are on the Lord’s agenda for us, and which we in this life may always be ignorant of.</p><p>The pregnant phrase&nbsp;<em>huper hemon</em>&nbsp;may mean simply “for us”, but&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;could suggest the idea of over and above, beyond us, more than us. In this case, there would be connection with the thought recently expressed by Paul that although we know not how to pray for as we ought, the Lord Jesus as “the Lord the Spirit” makes intercession for us, beyond what we can verbalize. And of course the idea would freely connect with <em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>, where Paul exalts that the Lord Jesus can do “exceeding Gk:&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;abundantly above Gk:&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;again- the sense of ‘beyond’ is very strong here in the Greek all we ask or think, through the power that works in us”:&nbsp; The wonder of it all will literally take us eternity to appreciate. Our innermost desire is for salvation, to serve God, to be as the Lord Jesus, to achieve His glory, both in our own characters and in all of creation. This, yet again, is the significance of <em><a href='B:520 7:15-23'>Rom 7:15-23</a></em>, that despite our failings and weakness, these are indeed our core desires. And it is this spirit of ours which is transferred to the Lord Jesus and understood by the Father and Judge of all. And in response to those desires, even now, there is a power working within us to do and be for us, to work in and for us, things beyond our wildest dreams and spiritual fantasies.</p><p><em><a href='B:520 8:34-35'>Rom 8:34-35</a></em> suggest that the love of Christ, from which we cannot be separated, is manifested to us through His intercessions for us. He doesn't offer our prayers to God all the time; He is our intercessor in the sense that He is always there as our representative, and on this basis we have acceptability with God, as we are in Him. This is proof enough that intercession is not equal to merely translating our prayers into a language God understands. We offer our prayers ourselves to God, as men have ever done. We are, in this sense, our own priesthood. We offer ourselves to God (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). He Himself made only one offering of Himself; He does not offer Himself again. If He were on earth, He would not be a priest. It is the fact we are in Him that makes our offerings acceptable. Many passages concerning mediation refer to the Lord's mediation of the new covenant through the atonement God achieved through Him. None of them associate His mediation with the offering of our prayers to God. Indeed, several passages suggest that the actual fact of the exalted Lord now being in heavenly places, and we being in Him, is in fact the intercession necessary to bring about our redemption- rather than His translating, as it were, of our actual words (<em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:1'>1Jn 2:1</a></em>). The references to intercession likewise never suggest that Christ intercedes in the sense of offering our prayers to God. "Intercession" can be read as another way of describing prayer; this is how the term is invariably used (<em><a href='B:300 7:16'>Jer 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 27:18'>Jer 27:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:1'>1Ti 2:1</a></em>). Thus when Jeremiah is told not to intercede for Israel, this meant he was not to pray for them; it does not imply that he was acting as a priest to offer Israel's prayers to God. Nowhere in the Bible is the idea floated that a man can offer another man's prayers to God and thereby make them acceptable. The Greek for "intercession" essentially means to meet a person; prayer / intercession is a meeting with God. There is evidently nothing morally impossible about a man having direct contact with God in prayer without any priest or 'mediator'; the Old Testament abounds with such examples. The fact we are called upon to make intercession for others is surely conclusive proof that "intercession" means prayer, not relaying the words of another to God (<em><a href='B:610 2:1'>1Ti 2:1</a></em>). This meaning of intercession needs to be borne in mind when we consider its occurrences in Romans 8. There we are taught that we know not what to pray for as we ought; the Lord Jesus makes intercession for us- i:e. He prays for us- not with words, i:e. not transferring our human words into God's language, not shuttling to and from between us and God as it were, but with His own groanings of the spirit. We don't know how to pray, so Christ prays (intercedes, in the language of Romans 8) for us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?</em>-</p><p> The “who?” may be a reference to God, because the “who?” of <em><a href='B:520 8:33-34'>Rom 8:33-34</a></em> was God. But the point there as here was that seeing God is the only One who can do such things, then we can rest assured that they will not happen. Because God, for the sake of His Son, will not do these things. We are “in Christ” by status, and what happened at baptism is not breakable by anything human. We cannot be separated from Him by all the calamities listed in this verse, an <em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em> goes on to remind us that this cannot happen because we are counted as the slaughtered Lamb, the Lord Jesus. The Greek for “separate” is usually used about divorce (<em><a href='B:530 7:10-11'>1Co 7:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:15'>1Co 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 19:6'>Mat 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:9'>Mar 10:9</a></em>). Only if we chose to as it were divorce from Christ can we be separated from Him. Only we can make that choice- no human situation in our lives is to be interpreted as meaning that Christ has withdrawn His love from us. Reading the list of awful tribulations which follows, we are to understand that the love of Christ does not, therefore, guarantee that we will not suffer in this life. Indeed, as <em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em> will go on to show, we as “in Christ” must be prepared to be slain with Him all the day long, so as to live with Him. “The love of Christ” frequently refers to His death for us. The fact He died for us should be enough to persuade us that having loved us so much, no human tribulation could possibly be interpreted to mean that He in fact doesn’t love us. And yet people stumble from their faith in Christ because of tribulation, as the parable of the sower makes clear. Why this happens is partly because they have failed to be focused daily upon the cross- that He there, then, did that&nbsp;<em>for me</em>&nbsp;today. This, then, is our challenge- to view all of life’s tragedies, pain and unfairness through the lens of the simple fact that the Son of God loved me, and gave Himself for me, and I as a man or woman in Him shall therefore live eternally.</p><p><em></p><p>Shall tribulation-&nbsp;</em>See on <em><a href='B:520 5:3'>Rom 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a></em>. The word used in the parable of the sower and also about the tribulations of the last days before Christ returns (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:21'>Mat 24:21</a></em>). Only through such tribulations shall we enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>). Significantly, Paul uses the word earlier in Romans, in speaking of the tribulation which shall come upon the rejected at the last day (<em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em>). It’s either tribulation then, or now. In this sense we can glory in tribulation, knowing it is the guarantee that we are really in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 5:3'>Rom 5:3</a></em>). Hence in the practical part of Romans we are exhorted to patiently endure tribulation (<em><a href='B:520 12:12'>Rom 12:12</a></em>).</p><p><em>Or anguish-&nbsp;</em>Again, the same word used in <em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em> “anguish” about the distress of the rejected in the last day. We must experience it now, or then. Paul uses this word again in <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>, along with words similar in meaning to the list here in <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>, in saying that we experience distresses “for Christ’s sake”, for the sake of the fact we are in Him and must have a part in His sufferings.</p><p><em>Or persecution-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in the parable of the sower (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>), to which Paul seems to be making allusion in <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>. Many of the words in this list are appropriate to Paul’s personal sufferings for the sake of His being “in Christ”. He too was persecuted (<em><a href='B:510 13:50'>Act 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:11'>2Ti 3:11</a></em>), distressed etc. The list of his sufferings in <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em> includes this word and others in the list here. Again and again, Paul writes as if talking to himself, and as such sets himself up as the parade example of what he means.</p><p><em>Or famine-&nbsp;</em>Lack of food. Again, this word is in the list of Paul’s own sufferings in <em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>. Perhaps Paul has specific reference to the famine which there was in the first century which affected the believers (<em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em>). And again, famine is to be one of the latter day tribulations (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>).</p><p><em>Or nakedness-&nbsp;</em>Lack of clothing. Again, this word is in the list of Paul’s own sufferings in <em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>Or peril-&nbsp;</em>This word is only used elsewhere in the list of Paul’s own sufferings in <em><a href='B:540 11:26'>2Co 11:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>Or sword</em>-</p><p> Note that Paul envisaged his readership as likely to suffer from the sword. And yet in <em><a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a></em> he speaks of the first century authorities as using the sword to execute God’s will against those who do wrong. This would lead us to interpret <em><a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a></em> as having specific and limited reference in time and space, perhaps only to the Rome ecclesia at a certain point in time and in some aspects of justice. Nothing, whatever, can separate us from the love of Christ towards us in His death (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>). His cross is therefore the constant rallying point of our faith, in whatever difficulty we live through. The resolve and strength we so need in our spiritual path can come only through a personal contemplation of the cross.</p><p>This list is to be understood in the context of <em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em>, that we are counted as in Christ, the slaughtered lamb, and therefore all His sufferings we expect to be somehow articulated in our own lives, just as His resurrection life also shall be. In the first century context, this list was the kind of ‘par for the course’ which anyone could expect who had signed up to be counted as “in Christ”. Twenty centuries later, the list may be more subtle, but nonetheless as painful. For the cross of Christ is the cross of Christ. The forms in which we share it may vary over history and geography, but the essence shall remain. Shall divorce, betrayal, cancer, false accusation- separate&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;from His love? They should not, but rather be seen as a very real sharing in His death and sufferings, from which we shall just as surely arise into new and eternal life. There are many connections between Romans the visions of Revelation. The whole court scene presented here in Romans 8, whereby the accuser of Christ’s brethren is now no longer in court, he and his case ‘thrown out of court’, is naturally reminiscent of the scene in Revelation 12. There, the accusers of Christ’s brethren are likened to the great Satan, the personified power of sin in its political manifestation, and this is also thrown out of ‘heaven’, out of the Heavenly court / throne room. The fact that&nbsp;<em>sin</em>&nbsp;has been conquered by Christ and ‘thrown out’ is therefore the guarantee that whatever oppressive sinful powers are now in authority, they in their turn will likewise be cast out. It’s only a matter of time now- because sin in its essence has been cast out already. This explains the seamless way in which Paul now moves on from speaking of how the power sin has been nullified to talking of how therefore and thereby, all human opposition to God’s people is now ultimately powerless.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as it is written: For your sake we are killed all the day long, we were deemed sheep for the slaughter</em>– See on <em><a href='B:520 8:13'>Rom 8:13</a></em>. The key word in this verse is “deemed / accounted”. Because we are counted as Christ, the lamb slain (and the allusion here is definitely to Isaiah 53), then we should not be phased by our experience of His cross in this life. Indeed we should expect it. We cannot look passively at the cross. It must change how we see ourselves. It must radically affect our self-perception and self understanding. For we are in Him. It was us who hung with Him there, and who hang with Him still in the tribulations of life. For we are to account / impute ourselves as the sheep for the slaughter, i:e. the Lord Jesus, for whose sake we are killed all the day long in the sharing of His sufferings (<em><a href='B:520 8:36'>Rom 8:36</a></em>); with Paul, we “die daily”, because we are in Christ. And if we suffer with Him, we will also reign with Him (<em><a href='B:520 8:17'>Rom 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:12'>2Ti 2:12</a></em>). To see ourselves as in Christ, to have such a positive view of ourselves, that the essential ‘me’ is actually the sinless Son of God, is almost asking too much of men and women living with all the dysfunction and low self-worth that seems part of the human condition.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:37'>Rom 8:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No</em>-</p><p> Paul seems again to be interpreting his readers’ response. ‘Surely it can’t be right that if we are in Christ, then we will suffer so much? Aren’t all these terrible tribulations the sign that we are rejected by God rather than accepted by Him?’. And Paul answers that “No”- in fact the way that we lose in this life is a sign that we have won, and more than won- we have become “more than conquerors”. Truly “I feel like I win when I lose” can become our credo in spiritual life.</p><p><em>In all these things</em>-</p><p> Every time they happen to us, they are the proof that we have therefore already won, in the very thing wherein it seems we have ‘lost’. The sense here is very much what we meet in the sermon on the mount- that we are to rejoice when we are persecuted, attacked and abused, because in that moment our reward is very great in Heaven.</p><p><em>We are more than conquerors</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:520 8:34'>Rom 8:34</a></em> “for us”. Again the word&nbsp;<em>huper&nbsp;</em>is used; there is the idea of being over and above conquerors. There is something superlative about the great salvation which there is in Christ. We don’t just scrape in to God’s Kingdom and sit there in humble gratitude for eternity thinking how blessed / lucky we were. Not at all. We are in Christ, and all that is true of Him is now and shall eternally be true of us. We are crowned as conquerors- and “more than&nbsp;<em>huper</em>&nbsp;conquerors”. There’s something ‘hyper’ about the nature and quality of our salvation. It is all so hyper abundantly above all we ask or think. And it begins now, and in this sense we have some sense, at least a gasp from a great distance, of the ‘hyper’ nature of it all. Paul surely has in mind how the Lord had comforted His people that “I have overcome s:w. ‘conquer’ the world” (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>). We are counted not only as overcomers just as Jesus was; but hyper-conquerors, hyper-overcomers. John alludes to this passage in his Gospel record when he comments in his letters that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>have overcome the world because of our belief into Jesus (<em><a href='B:690 2:13-14'>1Jn 2:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:4'>1Jn 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:4-5'>1Jn 5:4-5</a></em>). Clearly John like Paul perceived the believer into Christ involving baptism into Him as having the same status as Christ; if He has overcome, so have we. There is also a legal connotation to the word translated “conquerors”. The same word has been used in <em><a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a></em> to describe how God ‘overcomes’ when He is put in the dock and judged by human disbeliefs in His declared plan of salvation. Paul is now drawing his treatise to a conclusion. He began with us as sinners in the dock, accused by our own sins. He has argued that we have been declared right because we are in Christ; not simply ‘let off’, but declared right. We have won the case; the whole thing has been turned around. We the condemned are now the justified, we leave the courtroom as conquerors, as having legally overcome when we were judged; all, of course, because we are in Christ. We are right now more than conquerors through Christ (<em><a href='B:520 8:37'>Rom 8:37</a></em>); and yet to he who overcomes s:w. conquers the Kingdom shall be given (<em><a href='B:730 3:21'>Rev 3:21</a></em>). This doesn’t mean we can sit back and do nothing. And so Paul goes on to exhort us not to be overcome s:w. conquered of evil, but to overcome evil with good (<em><a href='B:520 12:21'>Rom 12:21</a></em>). “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who (or what)<em>&nbsp;can</em>&nbsp;be against us?". Paul caught the gloriously positive spirit of all this, and reflected it in his fondness for words with the&nbsp;<em>hyper-</em></p><p>&nbsp;prefix (<em><a href='B:520 8:37'>Rom 8:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:9'>Phi 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:7'>Phi 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:10'>1Th 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:6'>1Th 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:13'>1Th 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a></em>). God is not passively waiting for us to act, indifferently offering us the possible futures of salvation or condemnation according to our deeds. He earnestly desires our salvation, He wills and wishes us into the upward spiral of relationship with Him; He has given us spiritual potential and strength.</p><p><em>Through Him that loved us</em>-</p><p> The love of Christ is often specifically related to His death for us on the cross. We can only become “in Him” because He was so fully our representative, including in death itself. All this wonderful schema of salvation and justification of sinners, counting them as if they are Christ, could only come true because of His death. This was and is the central point of all things; it is not simply so that Christ as a person is the central means by which all was made possible, but more specifically it was His love unto death which was and is that central point.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:38'>Rom 8:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I am persuaded</em>-</p><p> Just as we also need lengthy persuasion as to the ultimate truth that we are saved in Christ, so Paul too had gone through this process of persuasion. The same word is often used to describe how Paul “persuaded” people to continue trusting in God’s grace rather than in their own works (<em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:4'>Act 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:26'>Act 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:23'>Act 28:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>)- indeed, persuading people seems to have been a hallmark of Paul’s preaching. Yet Paul persuaded others on the basis of how he himself had come to be persuaded; and this will be the characteristic of any truly effective preacher of the Gospel.</p><p><em>That neither death nor life</em>-</p><p> In <em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em> Paul has argued that no suffering nor disaster in our lives can separate us from “the love of Christ”. Now he starts to talk in more cosmic terms, leading up to the same conclusion- that we cannot be separated or divorced from God’s love for us which is “in Christ”. For those “in Christ”, nothing can stand in the way or change that status; only we can decide to file for divorce / separation. If we die- we shall be raised again. More tellingly, however, we may fear that “life” can separate us from God’s love; Paul may refer to ‘the tribulations of life’, but he may also have in view the way we can mess up in our lives. But not even that can separate us from God’s love for those who are “in Christ”. In what sense could&nbsp;<em>life</em>&nbsp;separate us from God's love? Surely only in the sense of sins committed in human life. Yet even these cannot separate us from the love of God which is so ready and eager to forgive us. This is the extent of grace; that not even sin, which on one hand separate from God, can actually separate us from the love of God in Christ. We are often plagued by a desire to separate out the things for which we are justly suffering, and things in which we are innocent victims. We struggle over whether our cancer or her depression is our fault, or whether we only got into unhealthy behaviours as a result of others' stressing us... etc. This struggle to understand the balance between personal guilt and being a victim of circumstance or other people makes it hard for some people to free themselves from guilt. Seeking to understand is especially acute when we face death, suffering, tragedy, or experience broken relationships. How much was I to blame? In how much was I merely a victim? My determined conclusion is that it is impossible, at least by any intellectual process, to separate out that suffering for which we are personally guilty, and that suffering which we are merely victims of. The cross of Jesus was not only to remove personal guilt through forgiveness; all our human sufferings and sicknesses were laid upon Him there. Our burdens, both of our own guilt and those which are laid upon us by life or other people, are and were carried by Him who is our total saviour.</p><p><em>Nor Angels, nor principalities... powers</em>-</p><p> I have argued elsewhere that Paul and the New Testament do not support the Jewish ideas of sinful Angels operating in various hierarchies and dimensions. Indeed, I have argued in&nbsp;<em>The Real Devil</em>&nbsp;that Paul consciously deconstructs these ideas. But for now Paul is prepared to allude to them, as if to say ‘Whatever you fear, whatever you believe is out there, however you believe it is in the cosmos- the wildest fears of your worst nightmares about the spirit world are not going to get in the way of God’s love for those in Christ’.</p><p><em>Nor things present nor things to come, nor powers</em>-</p><p> Whatever present crises you face, and whatever you may yet face. Knowing we are secured in Christ enables us not to fear the future. For even death itself, and all that may lead up to it, emotionally or physically, are unable to affect our “in Christ” status. “Things to come” may refer to the expected latter day tribulation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 8:39'>Rom 8:39</a></em> Nothing shall separate us from the love of God in Christ, as revealed in the cross (<em><a href='B:520 8:39'>Rom 8:39</a></em>). The idea of the love of Christ nearly always refers to the cross. And yet the same word occurs in <em><a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a></em>, to remind us that the Son of God is “separate from sinners”. Here again is the paradox. We are sinners. And yet we cannot be separated from He who is personally separate from sinners. Again, the conviction of guilt is required so that we can know His saving grace. But it’s possible to understand this contradiction as just that- a contradiction. The Lord Jesus is separate from sinners; but nothing shall separate&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;from Him, although we are sinners. This can be seen as yet another of the many irreconcilable paradoxes which express the purity of God’s grace. We have elsewhere commented upon the way that God angrily speaks of permanently rejecting His people, and yet says in the same breath almost that He has not and will never reject them, because of His tender love for them.</p><p><em>Nor height nor depth nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord</em>-</p><p> “Height” and “depth” may refer to creations supposed to exist beneath the earth or above the heavens. But no created thing can obstruct God’s feelings for us in Christ. Because we are human we tend to view life in a materialistic way; what is visible and concrete assumes huge importance for us. But no created thing can get in the way of God’s love for us- perhaps, the implication being, because this God who so loves us is Himself the creator of all things. Therefore no created thing, in any dimension, in this world nor any other world or dimension, can affect His feelings for us:&nbsp;</p><p>In exalting about the wonderful power of God in human life through Christ, Paul exalts that “neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come: nor height (Gk:&nbsp;<em>hypsoma</em>&nbsp;– the highest point a star reaches) nor depth (Gk:&nbsp;<em>bathos</em>&nbsp;– the abyss from which a star rises), nor any other creature, are able to separate us from the love of God” (<em><a href='B:520 8:38-39'>Rom 8:38-39</a></em>). “The position of the stars was supposed to affect human destinies. ‘Whatever the stars may be supposed to do’, Paul says, ‘they cannot separate us from God’s love’” (5). Likewise by referring to “any other creature”, Paul seems to be saying that there is no reality, nor even any supposed reality in heaven and earth, that can separate us from God’s loving power. It seems to me, given the facts that Paul doesn’t teach the existence of a personal Satan / demons and so often deconstructs the common ideas about them, that Paul is effectively saying here: ‘Even if you think these things exist, well they are of utterly no power and consequence given the extraordinary and ultimate nature of God’s power’. And so the argument is wrapped up. God’s love for us who are “in Christ” is part and parcel of His love for Christ Himself, His dearly beloved Son. We will be saved, because we are in Christ. And totally nothing and nobody, not even our own humanity and failure, can separate us from Him and His love.</p><p>Notes</p><p>(1) F:F. Bruce,&nbsp;<em>Paul And Jesus</em>&nbsp;(London: S:P:C:K:, 1977) p. 78.</p><p>(2) Thomas Weinandy<em>, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh</em>&nbsp;(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993) p. 79.</p><p>(3) Vincent Branick, “The Sinful Flesh of the Son of God”,&nbsp;<em>The Catholic Bible Quarterly</em>&nbsp;47 (1985) p. 250:&nbsp;</p><p>(4) Stephen Finlan,&nbsp;<em>The Background and Content of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors</em>&nbsp;(Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004).</p><p>(5) A:M. Hunter,&nbsp;<em>Romans</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 1981) p. 87.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:1'>Rom 9:1</a></em> As explained in the introduction to this commentary, Romans is very thematic. The first eight chapters outline a theology of grace, intended to bind together the Jewish and Gentile elements within the membership of the church at Rome. Chapters 9-11 present God's dealings with Israel as the parade example of His grace and way of working. Chapters 12-16 then draw on the preceding chapters in appealing for practical behaviour motivated by the theology there outlined.</p><p><em>I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> Paul is about to make a momentous personal statement in :2 and :3, reflecting a level of love which is hard to believe a man could reach- being prepared to offer his eternity for the sake of Israel. He says that his own conscience is corroborated by the Holy Spirit, that this is indeed how he feels. For in <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> he states that whether or not our conscience is clear in a matter is not of ultimate importance; it is the Lord's judgment of our position which is all important, as human awareness of internal conscience can be faulty. I have noted on <em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em> and elsewhere that Paul felt that the operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of believers ought to influence the conscience. And here he states under Divine inspiration that what he is now writing is indeed true and confirmed by the Holy Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:2'>Rom 9:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart</em>-</p><p> This is the spirit of Jeremiah, who likewise suffered at the hands of a Gospel-resistant Israel, but loved them to tears. The rejection of the Gospel by others should not be met by indifference on our part. Any who have a real sense of God's glory and the tragedy of any man's rejection of the cross will feel likewise. Paul uses the same word for "sorrow" in writing of his pain at Corinth's rejection of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:540 2:1'>2Co 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:3'>2Co 2:3</a></em>), and we note that Paul may well have been writing to the Romans from Corinth. Paul had these feelings "in Christ" (:1) because he was manifesting the Lord's emotions towards Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh-&nbsp;</em>One of the (many) agonies of Paul's soul was that he felt that his brethren did not appreciate the depth of love which he had for them. Israel certainly didn't; and he loved them to the same extent as Moses did, willing, at least in theory, to give his&nbsp;<em>eternal salvation</em>&nbsp;so that they might be saved (<em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>). The more (Gk. 'the more-and-more-abundantly') he loved Corinth, the less they realized his love, and the more they turned away from him (<em><a href='B:540 2:4'>2Co 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em>); and he so earnestly wished (Gk:) that the believers in Colosse and Laodicea appreciated how much he spiritually cared for them (<em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>"I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" was the spirit of Moses, in being willing to give his own physical and eternal life for the salvation of Israel (<em><a href='B:20 32:30-32'>Exo 32:30-32</a></em>). Paul is here rising up to imitate Moses at perhaps his finest hour- willing, at least in principle, to give up his eternal life for the sake of Israel's salvation. The extent of Paul's love for natural Israel does not come out that strongly in the Acts and epistles; but this allusion to Moses says it all. The RVmg. renders <em><a href='B:520 9:3'>Rom 9:3</a></em>: “I could pray…”, more clearly alluding to Moses’ prayer that the people might enter and he be rejected. Yet Paul perceived that God would not accept a substitute offering like that; and hence he says he&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>pray like this. In essence, he had risen to the same level. Likewise he wrote in <em><a href='B:590 2:8'>1Th 2:8</a></em> RV that he was “well pleased i:e. theoretically willing to impart unto, you not the gospel of God only, but our own souls, because ye were dear unto us”. He perceived the difference between mere imparting of the Gospel in preaching, and being willing to give ones’ soul, ones salvation, because of a heart that bleeds for others. No wonder Paul was such a convincing preacher, with such love behind his words.</p><p>Paul was willing in theory to give up his salvation for them, even though he knew that in actual fact this is not the basis on which God works. He emphasizes that he is not using mere words: "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not note the double emphasis, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:520 9:1-3'>Rom 9:1-3</a></em>). The Holy Spirit confirmed that what he felt in his conscience for them was in fact valid; this really was the level of devotion Paul reached for a nation who systematically worked for his extermination, and even more painfully, for the infiltration and destruction of his lifetime's work. The Jewish infiltrators had indirectly had their effect on Corinth, who mocked and denigrated the Paul who would have laid down his life for them. And yet time and again he calls them his brethren, he sees them as an innocent Eve in Eden, about to be beguiled by the snake of the Jewish infiltrators; he sees them as a chaste virgin. But remember how they denigrated him, in the cruellest ways. Yet his love for them was surpassing. If indeed Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, his experience with the Corinthians prepared him for this momentous statement to the Romans about Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:4'>Rom 9:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who are Israelites, whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises</em>-</p><p> We note that Israel were God's "adopted" son; not His only&nbsp;<em>begotten&nbsp;</em>Son. This would have been a sideways swipe at Jewish emphasis upon ethnicity as a basis for being God's children. All the glory, covenants etc. were given initially to Israel; which is why the tragedy of their rejection of the Christ who was the focal point of all these things was the more tragic. Paul is writing here not so much as to glorify Israel as to explain why he felt the deep sense of tragedy for them which he did as expressed in :3.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:5'>Rom 9:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ, as concerning the flesh, who is over all. God be praised forever Amen</em>-</p><p> The praise of Christ as being so exceedingly "over all" was a swipe at the Jewish tendency to consider Messiah as inferior to the fathers such as Abraham and David. The Lord tackled the same mistaken view by reminding the Jews that David referred to Messiah as his "Lord" (<em><a href='B:480 12:37'>Mar 12:37</a></em>); the "Son of David" was in fact David's Lord and master. "Of whom is Christ" is a clear statement that the Lord Jesus came 'out of' the Jewish fathers as the promised seed of men like Abraham and David. In no way can the idea of a personal pre-existence of Christ be supported Biblically, the evidence is all against it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:6'>Rom 9:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But it is not as though the word of God has come to nothing. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel</em>-</p><p> This is an allusion in terms of ideas, although not lexical items&nbsp; words, to the grand encouragement of <em><a href='B:290 55:11'>Isa 55:11</a></em> that God's word shall not return void but will accomplish His purpose, even if in different ways than those initially intended. God's word of salvation in Christ same to 'something' through the redefinition of Israel as those who accepted His grace in Christ. "For they are not all Israel that are of Israel" was a quotation from right wing Judaism in condemnation of their weaker brethren; but Paul is effectively saying that it is they who are condemned in these terms.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:7'>Rom 9:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Neither, because they are Abraham's seed are they all children, but: In Isaac shall your seed be called</em>-</p><p> Physical descent from Abraham did not make anyone the true "children" of Abraham; because Ishmael also was the seed of Abraham, but was not his "child" in the sense that he did not walk according to the faith of Abraham in his future Messianic seed. That promise was fulfilled through Isaac. So within the statement "In Isaac shall your seed be called" there is the implication that the "seed" of Abraham is to be understood in two senses- referring to the literal children of Abraham, and secondly, specifically referring to the Messiah. Abraham's true seed was therefore one man- the Lord Jesus. Only those "in Him" were the seed to which the promises had reference.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:8'>Rom 9:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That is: it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God, but the children of the promise who are counted as the seed</em>-</p><p> See on :7. Fleshly descent from Abraham did not make one a member of the seed of promise. That seed was one person- the Lord Jesus. And only identity with Him makes a person part of the promised seed. This connects with all Paul has written in chapters 1-8; that acceptability with God is on the basis of being in Christ and being thereby counted as Christ, who alone is the promised seed. Galatians 3 makes these points again in very clear language.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:9'>Rom 9:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this is the word of promise: According to this season will I come and Sarah shall have a son</em>-</p><p> The 'coming' of God was in the son of Abraham and Sarah; God 'came' in Christ supremely. In no way did the promised seed literally come down from some pre-existent state in Heaven; He too was conceived on this earth, and through Him God 'came' to His people.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:10'>Rom 9:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And not only so, but Rebecca also having conceived by one, by our father Isaac</em>-</p><p> "Conceived by one" is hard to make sense of. Perhaps the idea is that Rebecca was Isaac's only wife. But the next verses speak of how out of two children, the choice of which one was to be the seed was made on the basis of predestination. Both Jacob and Esau had the same one father; but one was chosen and the other wasn't. Abraham had children by various women (Hagar, Keturah and Sarah at least); Isaac had children by only one woman. So there was no question about whether Esau and Jacob were in the right line, as it were. But the point was, a choice was made by predestination and calling.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:11'>Rom 9:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him that calls-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :10, Paul is defining the 'seed' as being not according to fleshly descent for both Esau and Jacob were from the same father and mother, but according to calling and predestination independent of the works they did. For the Genesis record frames Jacob as being inferior to Esau in his works. This historical interlude about Israel in Romans 9-11 is in exemplification of the theology outlined in chapters 1-8. There we have read that works do not save a person; it is by God's grace. And the obvious exemplification of grace is in the very existence of concepts like predestination and calling (<em><a href='B:520 8:30'>Rom 8:30</a></em>). Struggle with these concepts as we may, the simple point is that salvation is not by works nor intellectual ability or good fortune to correctly understand the text of Scripture. This is what predestination implies. One is called and the other isn't, even when the works of one Jacob are not much to boast of, and the one who is not called Esau comes over in the record as a far nicer, more forgiving kind of guy than the one who was called.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:12'>Rom 9:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger-&nbsp;</em>Esau is presented as the stronger of the two; but he was to serve Jacob. The calling was not of works nor of human strength. We note here that Paul apparently brushes by the blessing of Isaac to the intent that one day, Esau would rise above his brother Jacob and cast off the yoke of servanthood which the earlier statement of the Angel had required (<em><a href='B:10 27:40'>Gen 27:40</a></em>). Whilst the record of those words is inspired, we have there an example of where a man spoke as he felt was required, and the content of his words was not inspired because it was at variance with God's own word. We can reflect further that Jacob and Rebecca did not believe the Angelic words of blessing, thinking they must make them come true through their own works- which resulted in the fair mess up of much of Jacob's life. The Angelic word was a word of grace that should have just been accepted; no works could bring it to fulfilment. And this too is the exemplification of what Paul has written at such length in chapters 1-8.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:13'>Rom 9:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated</em>-</p><p> The point has been fairly made that the Hebrew in <em><a href='B:460 1:2-3'>Mal 1:2-3</a></em> can mean that God loved Esau less, rather than "hated". But that possibility of meaning is not reflected in the quotation here; and Paul is unafraid to tweak Old Testament quotations in order to give the better sense. Perhaps he goes with the term "hated" in order to set us up to indignantly protest that something isn't write here. And he then proceeds to deal with that in the following verses, which teach that we ought to focus on the wonder of the fact that the unworthy Jacob has been loved, and we can share in that love by identification with the seed; and in any case, it is not for us to question God, but rather simply accept His grace. This is the answer to those who experience endless&nbsp;<em>angst</em>&nbsp;about the fate of those who have not heard. No answer is given. We are taught by the whole problem to praise God for the grace He does show to some, and learn our humility before Him in accepting those things which seem so deeply unfair. The context of <em><a href='B:460 1:2-3'>Mal 1:2-3</a></em> is God appealing to Judah to not refuse God's love towards them, seeing it has not been shown to all. And that challenge and appeal comes through to us in all our struggles concerning the morality of God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:14'>Rom 9:14</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 13:12'>Rom 13:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid</em>-</p><p> As noted on :13, the apparent hatred of God towards Esau is set up to test our response. To protest against it is to say that God is unrighteous, and this is a possibility we are not to even entertain. His predestination of one but not another, loving one and hating another, is in fact His righteousness. And again, Paul has written in chapters 1-8 of God's ultimate rightness in imputing His righteousness to us- when we do not deserve it. This problem is here placed before us from a different angle- God is 'right' and 'righteous' to love Jacob and hate Esau. Even if all within us cries out against such a position as being immoral and unfair- by our human standards. Likewise, His imputation of righteousness to the unrighteous seems immoral and unfair. But the whole glorious situation is set up to test our obedient acceptance of His grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:15'>Rom 9:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For He said to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion</em>-</p><p> This quotation from <em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em> concerns the manifestation of the Yahweh Name. The fact God makes a sovereign choice to save some and not others is actually the most fundamental part of His very being as revealed to us. This whole concept of calling some and not others to salvation is presented in Romans 8 as the parade example of God's grace, and that such grace is the basis of salvation and not works. 'What happens to the rest?' is of course the question God foresees shall arise, and He carefully says nothing about it. Exactly because He wants us to focus upon His grace and accept that it is indeed beyond understanding and against all that we have known in any other aspect of human life and thinking.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:16'>Rom 9:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy</em>-</p><p> God's statement that "I will have mercy" means that it is&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>will which saves men, and not the will of man "him that wills" and all the works done as an outflow of human will. His mercy is therefore operative on a level above human will / volition and works 'running'. It is God and not man who does the 'running' for our salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the scripture says of Pharaoh-&nbsp;</em>When we read His word, we hear His voice. <em><a href='B:110 13:21'>1Ki 13:21</a></em> speaks of us hearing "the mouth of God". Jeremiah spoke "from the mouth of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:140 36:12'>2Ch 36:12</a></em>). His word brings Him that near to us, if we will perceive it for what it is. Thus "Scripture" is put for "God" (<em><a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>) and vice versa (Matthew 19; Matthew 4, 5). When we speak and preach God's word, we are relaying God's voice to men, and should make appropriate effort to deport ourselves as the ministers of His word and voice- not to mention diligently ensuring that our expression and exposition of His word is correct and not fanciful. We are to speak / preach "as it were oracles of God" (<em><a href='B:670 4:11'>1Pe 4:11</a></em> Gk:). We are His voice to men in our preaching of His word.</p><p><em>For this very purpose did I raise you up, that I might show in you My power, and that My Name might be published abroad in all the earth</em>-</p><p> The question of those that are not called and who are hardened is presented from the perspective of God's purpose to save those whom He has called. The publishing of God's Name throughout all the earth is the Old Testament language of the Kingdom of God on earth (<em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:43'>1Ki 8:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 66:4'>Psa 66:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 83:18'>Psa 83:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 102:15'>Psa 102:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 14:9'>Zec 14:9</a></em>) and is repeated in <em><a href='B:520 15:9'>Rom 15:9</a></em>. The earlier quotation from Malachi in :13 goes on to explain that the loving of Jacob and hating of Esau will climax in all the Gentiles seeing God's Name in all the earth (<em><a href='B:460 1:11'>Mal 1:11</a></em>). Somehow- and the process is as yet hidden from us- the saving of some and not saving of others shall result in God's Name being published throughout all the earth. This in a limited sense happened when Israel were redeemed from Egypt and Pharaoh was destroyed, but the final reality of it will be in the salvation of God's people at the time of the Kingdom of God on the whole earth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:18'>Rom 9:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then He has mercy on whom He wishes to, and hardens who He wishes-&nbsp;</em>The emphasis is upon the wishing or willing of God. The will of God is for our salvation- that is the repeated theme of the New Testament. There is another side to that will- in that He does not save all. Some He hardens. But the will of God is for&nbsp;<em>our</em>salvation, and the death of His Son to that end was the deepest articulation of that will (<em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:9'>Heb 10:9</a></em>). That is the Biblical emphasis and we are out of step with God's will for us if we chafe against that with the pretensions of&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;will. The Bible revealed God's will as being opposed to human will; and our will is to doubt and walk away from the way His will operates. The question of 'What about the unsaved?' is purposefully built into human experience as an exercise for us in this regard.</p><p>In the same way as Pharaoh hardened his heart, so natural Israel have done (<em><a href='B:520 11:7'>Rom 11:7</a></em>). Those Jews who refused grace in Christ are therefore as Egypt and are not the true people of God, and will receive Egypt's condemnation. Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but God also hardened his heart. And it is this latter aspect which is focused upon here, in exemplification of how the Spirit works on human hearts, as explained in chapter 8.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:19'>Rom 9:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then you will say to me: Why does He still find fault? For who withstands His will?</em>-</p><p> Seeing we are so often exhorted to do God's will, and we have freewill not to, it is apparent that indeed God's will can be withstood. The same word is used of Elymas and others resisting the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 13:8'>Act 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:8'>2Ti 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:15'>2Ti 4:15</a></em>) and Paul will go on to use the word in saying that some do indeed withstand God (<em><a href='B:520 13:2'>Rom 13:2</a></em>). God does not "find fault" with those whom His will forces to rebel against Him. But in :20 Paul doesn't make that perhaps obvious rejoinder; rather he says that it is not for us to question God.</p><p>It seems that Judaism was arguing that the Jews were chosen and therefore must be acceptable to God. But Paul deconstructs this by making several links with Job, whom he appears to read as initially having the same wrong attitudes as did the Jews:&nbsp;</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Romans 9</td><td>Job</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:19 "Thou (the Jews) wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault (with Pharaoh and the Jews)? For who hath resisted His will? The Jews were saying that it was God's pre-ordained purpose that they should be His people, therefore their behaviour was excusable.</td><td>"He is… mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself (NIV "resisted" ) against&nbsp;Him, and hath prospered?". Job's reasoning is similar to &nbsp; that of the Jews- &nbsp; effectively he too is asking why God is finding fault with him (<em><a href='B:220 9:4'>Job 9:4</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:20 “O man, who art thou that disputest (AVmg:) with God"</td><td>This is what Job desired to do: "I would order my cause before Him, and fill my mouth with arguments... there the righteous might dispute with Him" (<em><a href='B:220 23:4-7'>Job 23:4-7</a></em>).</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:14 "Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid" . The context is that the Jews were saying that their Calvinistic view of predestination allowed them to sin yet still remain God's people.</td><td>By Job saying "It profiteth a man nothing &nbsp; that he should delight himself in God" because he is either predestined to &nbsp; salvation or not, Job provoked the &nbsp; comment from Elihu "Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness; and from &nbsp; the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity" (<em><a href='B:220 34:10'>Job 34:10</a></em>). The link between this and <em><a href='B:520 9:14'>Rom 9:14</a></em> shows that Job had the same mentality as the Judaizers, and was thus also shown the blasphemous conclusion to which his reasoning led.</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:20'>Rom 9:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No, O man; who are you to answer back to God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it: Why did you make me thus?</em>-</p><p> See on :19. There are plenty of legitimate answers to the complaint that God is forcing people into sin and therefore He is being unreasonable. I suggest that Paul purposefully throws up an obviously illegitimate objection, to which we as readers are already formulating good answers before we reach :20. But our eager expectations that Paul will trounce such objections is purposefully disappointed by what we are to consider the even greater mega argument- that it is not for us to answer back to God. The allusion, as mentioned on :19, is to Job and his friends answering back to God when they should have fallen silent well before they did. That is the abiding impression we have at the end of the book of Job- that Job has fallen silent, laying his hand upon his mouth, but he should have done this far earlier. And Paul asks us to do the same.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:21'>Rom 9:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or has not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel to honour, and another to dishonour?</em>-</p><p> The obvious Old Testament allusions are to <em><a href='B:290 29:16'>Isa 29:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 64:8'>Isa 64:8</a></em> and Jeremiah 18. In all these passages, Judah considered that God had been unreasonable. They were not correct- the answer could so easily have been that they were in the situation they were in because of their sins. But as here in Romans 9, the answer instead is that they are but clay in the hands of the potter. It is God who has the "right" to use clay as He wishes. The whole humanist objection to this is that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>have 'rights'. It is a humbling thing to learn that as God's children, our only 'right' is to an eternal grave; nor do we have any 'right to life'. All is of grace, of gift. In this age of obsession with 'our rights', it's so hard to accept God's perspective- that His will and right is supreme, and our personal focus should be more upon our own wrongs rather than our rights. "The same lump" repeats the teaching of :10, that from one couple came Jacob and Esau, and one was a vessel to honour and another to dishonour. And in any case, we are only being made into "vessels"- for the Father's use in His house. Paul surely wrote this with his eye on how he himself was a "chosen vessel" (<em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> s:w:). Yet he had to exercise freewill to be part of that purpose and Divine intention. The same words are used in <em><a href='B:590 4:4'>1Th 4:4</a></em> where Paul urges his converts to deport themselves appropriately for those who are vessels of honour by acting with "sanctification and honour". He uses the same words in appealing to Timothy to act likewise as a vessel of honour (<em><a href='B:620 2:20-21'>2Ti 2:20-21</a></em>). Divine choice is one thing, but nobody is being forced to be righteous. We are to respond to the grace of His calling. Paul has earlier taught the Romans that they are to seek for honour, and those who 'work good' shall indeed receive it (<em><a href='B:520 2:7'>Rom 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:10'>Rom 2:10</a></em>). Here in Romans 9 we are asked to understand that in the perspective of God having actually chosen us for that end- and He didn't choose everyone. The fact we were called to this end and others weren't should be accepted in gratitude, and responded to- rather than complaining about the philosophical issues arising from some others not having been called.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:22'>Rom 9:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And so what if God is willing to show His anger and to make His power known, enduring with longsuffering vessels of anger prepared for destruction</em>-</p><p> The fact some will be destroyed at the last day can be seen from a positive viewpoint; it means that God is amazingly tolerant of them right now. Perhaps his tolerance is so long because he even seeks their repentance, as it seems He did with Pharaoh. Again, the existence of this class of unsaved, condemned persons is to highlight His grace towards us. It's rather like asking why there are so many uninhabited planets and life forms on earth which shall not be saved. It is to give backdrop to the wonder of the grace which has invited&nbsp;<em>us&nbsp;</em>to salvation in God's Kingdom. The showing of God's anger is balanced by His making of His power known. The same word translated 'make known' is found in :23- God will make known the riches of His glory to us who are saved. The showing of God's anger and long endurance of those He shall destroy is therefore in order to highlight and emphasize His power and grace made known to us:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:23'>Rom 9:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy-&nbsp;</em>The existence of the vessels for destruction is in order to provide context for the glory of the vessels who receive mercy. "Make known" translates a word which means 'make to understand'. Then we shall understand- at the last day, when the riches of glory are realized upon the saved. Then we shall perceive how the whole thing worked out for<em>&nbsp;His</em>&nbsp;glory, and in great richness of that glory. In that day, we will learn by the condemnation of the wicked. The very existence of “the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” is in order to “make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy”. After the experience of Divine judgment, "ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem"; and yet these are exactly the words used to describe how God will be 'comforted' after the judgments (<em><a href='B:330 5:13'>Eze 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 14:22'>Eze 14:22</a></em>). We will come to share God's perspective through our experience of the judgment process. It will teach us to be like Him, to see things from His viewpoint. As a result of it, the struggles we have over "why…?" not all are saved will be resolved:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Which He beforehand prepared for glory-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Our place in God's Kingdom was "prepared" from the beginning of the world (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> s:w:), although it was the Lord's death which prepared the place for us (<em><a href='B:500 14:2-3'>Joh 14:2-3</a></em> s:w:). But it is up to us to accept it; places in that Kingdom were "prepared" for Israel but they declined the invitation (<em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em> s:w:). This is the tragedy- eternity is prepared for some who refuse it. The depth of the tragedy of itself urges us to do all we can to spread the Gospel and strengthen those who have responded.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:24'>Rom 9:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:590 4:7'>1Th 4:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>Even us, whom He also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?-&nbsp;</em>Again we note the connection with the earlier teaching about calling in <em><a href='B:520 8:30'>Rom 8:30</a></em>, where the concept of calling is given as an example of how salvation is by grace. That calling pays no regard to ethnicity; for whoever hears the invitation is in that sense called to the Kingdom. Therefore it is not the case that only Jews were called; for the Gospel was being heard by non-Jews as well.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:25'>Rom 9:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As He said also in Hosea: I will call them My people, who were not My people; and she that was not beloved shall be called beloved</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The 'calling' here in Romans means 'calling to hear the Gospel'. The context of <em><a href='B:350 2:23'>Hos 2:23</a></em> is that Israel, like Hosea's faithless wife Gomer, were not God's people but would again be called "My people". But that 'calling' is through the calling of the Gospel in Christ. In fact <em><a href='B:350 2:23'>Hos 2:23</a></em> is alluding to the fact that Gomer had become pregnant with a child indeed, children by another man whilst married to Hosea, and Hosea had named the child Lo-Ammi, 'Not my people'. But as Hosea dreamed of adopting the child as fully his and accepting Gomer again, so God did for Israel. But as things were never really resolved between Hosea and Gomer, neither were they between God and Israel on a national sense. But Paul perceives that the desire to call a 'not My people' as 'My people' would be fulfilled through the calling of individuals of all ethnicities to be God's people. Hosea's plans for Gomer and Lo-Ammi were rooted in pure grace, stemming from deepest love. Likewise God will impute righteousness to those whom He calls, so that the not loved wife becomes the beloved wife, and the illegitimate children are counted as "My people". Here again we see connection to the preceding theological arguments about imputed righteousness in Romans 1-8. Israel shall again be counted as the beloved wife, and the illegitimate children counted as legitimate- for all who respond to the call:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:26'>Rom 9:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And it shall be, that in the place where it was said to them: You are not My people, there shall they be called children of the living God</em>-</p><p> The illegitimate child of Gomer, Lo-Ammi "not my people" would be adopted by Hosea, through his imputing righteousness to his wayward family. It is tempting to interpret "the place" as Jerusalem. But there is no particular reason for thinking that there is some geographical reference in view. The quotation from <em><a href='B:350 1:10'>Hos 1:10</a></em> uses the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>maqom</em>, which often refers to the holy place, the temple. It is in the temple of God, which now refers to the church, that the new children of God are adopted and accepted.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:27'>Rom 9:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Isaiah cried out concerning Israel-&nbsp;</em>Paul perceived through the Spirit that Isaiah&nbsp;<em>cried aloud</em>&nbsp;with passion the idea that although there were many people theoretically "of Israel" in that they were the seed of Abraham, only a remnant of them would be saved. And Paul implies that this holds true in our dispensation too (<em><a href='B:290 10:22'>Isa 10:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 9:27'>Rom 9:27</a></em>). One can sense how much Paul felt the passion of God's word. It wasn't just black print on white paper to him. Thus he speaks of how "Esaias is very bold, and saith... Esaias also&nbsp;<em>crieth</em>&nbsp;concerning Israel..." (<em><a href='B:520 9:27'>Rom 9:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:20'>Rom 10:20</a></em>). Paul had meditated deeply upon Isaiah's words, even to the point of considering the tone of voice in which he first spoke them. See on <em><a href='B:510 13:27'>Act 13:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>Even if the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is only the remnant that shall be saved</em>-</p><p> Again we have the idea of two seeds of Abraham. Those who are indeed "as the sand of the sea", fulfilling the promise about the multiplication of Abraham's seed, are not thereby saved. Salvation is for the remnant; see on :6. Truly not all Israel are of Israel.</p><p>There may also be particular reference to the saving of Israel in the last days. The Isaiah quotation is from <em><a href='B:290 10:20-23'>Isa 10:20-23</a></em>, which says that in the context of the Assyrian invasion, “the remnant of Israel”, those who survive it, will trust in the Lord alone and “in truth”, i:e. in covenant relationship with Him. It seems that all others of natural Israel will perish in the latter day holocaust upon Israel. (as in <em><a href='B:290 4:2-4'>Isa 4:2-4</a></em>). This language of the remnant ‘returning’ unto the Lord is quoted here about the repentance of the Jewish people and their turning to Christ. Israel were intended to repent because of Sennacherib’s invasion (<em><a href='B:290 37:31-32'>Isa 37:31-32</a></em>), and then “the consumption” of God’s plan could have happened. But the prophecy has been reinterpreted with reference to Israel in the last days, repenting finally as the result of the latter day Assyrian invasion. Isaiah 10 speaks of how Israel’s affliction by Assyria leads them to repentance; a “remnant shall return… unto the mighty God” (<em><a href='B:290 10:21'>Isa 10:21</a></em>)- and the “mighty God” has just been defined in <em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em> as a title for the Lord Jesus. This will be a result of God using the Assyrian invader to “make a consumption… in the midst of all the land” of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 10:23'>Isa 10:23</a></em>). The “yoke” of Assyria “shall be destroyed because of the anointing” (<em><a href='B:290 10:27'>Isa 10:27</a></em>)- i:e. the coming of Christ, the anointed one, in response to the remnant returning unto Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:28'>Rom 9:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short</em>-</p><p> This seems to mean that God's word of salvation shall be fulfilled by the actual salvation of God's people at the last day. But the intended time period will be shortened- as a display of God's grace. This becomes apparent by comparing <em><a href='B:520 9:28-29'>Rom 9:28-29</a></em> with Matthew 24 :</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Matthew 24&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Romans 9</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>v. 22 "For the elect's sake</td><td>The seed preserved&nbsp;by the Lord&nbsp;of hosts / Angels (:29)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Those days shall be shortened</td><td>v. 28 "He will finish the account (of Israel's sin), and cut it short in righteousness: because a short(ened) work will the Lord make upon all the earth (land)"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>…or else there should no flesh be saved"&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>v. 29 "as Sodom"</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Romans 9 is quoting from <em><a href='B:290 28:22'>Isa 28:22</a></em>, which is about "a consumption, even determined upon the whole land... from the Lord God of hosts (Angels)". Thus the Angels planned to destroy Israel even more terribly than they did in AD70, but the "determined" "days" of "consumption" were "shortened" because the Angels- other ones apart from the destroying Angels?- had preserved a faithful seed or remnant, which is the theme of the section of Romans where the quotation from Isaiah 28 occurs. And there must be marked similarities in the last days too. “The remnant” of Israel will be saved, those who believe in Jesus, “For the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short… as Isaiah hath said before, Except the Lord of sabaoth had left us a seed i:e. the remnant we had become as Sodom” (<em><a href='B:520 9:28-29'>Rom 9:28-29</a></em> RV). This associates the shortening of the last days with the salvation of the Jewish remnant. Paul is surely expanding the Lord’s own words, that the days will be shortened “for the elect’s sake”. And that “elect”, according to Paul’s inspired exposition, are the Jews who repent and accept Jesus in the last days. Quite simply, the quicker we get the remnant of Israel to repent, the quicker the Lord will be back. The bigger message, in the context, is that the shortening of intended time periods is another example of the operation of grace in bringing about final salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And, as Isaiah has said before: Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had become as Sodom and had been made like Gomorrah</em>-</p><p> Paul makes the point that for the sake of the tiny group of Jews who did still hold and practice the truth, Israel would not suffer the judgments of Sodom in totality (<em><a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 1:9'>Isa 1:9</a></em>). This would indicate that there will also be a latter day Jewish remnant which will stop the faithless Israel of today receiving the judgment of permanent destruction. But in the context of Romans, the point is that the remnant themselves are "left" as such; it is God's grace which preserves them faithful and acceptable. Not human works. God "left" a remnant of faithful believers in apostate Israel. Whilst their faithfulness was obviously a result of their own spiritual effort, God 'leaving' them from apostasy suggests that He was also active in preserving them from it too. The record does not speak of them saving themselves from it. <em><a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a></em> goes on to state that in fact, Judah&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;as Sodom and Gomorrah: "Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom Listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah". But by grace, the remnant are "left" by Him so that they are&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;treated as Sodom and Gomorrah. This is again a great example of how righteousness is imputed to people by grace, and how the grace / gift of the Spirit works to keep the saved abiding faithful. This is why Romans 8 speaks so much of the gift of the Spirit in the hearts of believers; this is why the remnant are "left", maintained in faith, so that although they are as Sodom (<em><a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a></em>), they are not seen as Sodom (<em><a href='B:290 1:9'>Isa 1:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:30'>Rom 9:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith-&nbsp;</em>The whole situation with Jews and Gentiles is being presented here as an exemplification of how salvation is by grace. Verse 31 speaks of following after "a law of righteousness", so here we need to read that in too- the Gentiles "followed not after a law of righteousness". Gentiles who were ignorant or disinterested in the Law of Moses which was holy, righteous and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em> s:w:) end up righteous- because that righteousness is imputed to them by faith in Christ whereby they are counted as Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:31'>Rom 9:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law</em>-</p><p> In contrast to the Gentiles who believed in Christ, Israel did not obtain righteousness before God through the law of Moses. They did not arrive at the righteousness of faith, because the Mosaic law offered no righteousness on the basis of it being imputed by faith. Instead, there had to obedience. And we are too weak to attain total obedience to it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:32'>Rom 9:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works, they stumbled at the stone of stumbling</em>-</p><p> Attaining righteousness by attempted obedience to a set of laws requires no faith. And if the game is simply obedience to rules, then there is no real need for the Lord Jesus and the wonderful offer of being counted as Him, if we believe into Him. And thus He becomes a stone of stumbling.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as it is written: Look, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;This uses the same Greek words as found in <em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em>, where we are exhorted not to lay s:w. a stumblingstone s:w. nor rock of offence AV "occasion to fall" in our brother's path. What God does isn't necessarily a pattern for us; we are not, e.g., to use war or murder people in the way He has done at some times. Christ is the stumblingstone to all those who seek justification by works- their trust in works means that they don't perceive the need for Him, and so the whole idea of salvation by grace through being in Him becomes a stumblingstone for them. What this means for us is that we aren't to demand salvation by works from our brethren e.g. from demanding dietary obedience from our brethren, which is the context of <em><a href='B:520 14:13'>Rom 14:13</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he that believes in him shall not be put to shame</em>-</p><p> The emphasis is upon 'believing'. It is faith which makes us unashamed- in that the "faith" is faith that really, God does impute righteousness to us because we are "in Christ".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:720 1:20'>Jud 1:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>Brothers, my heart's desire and my supplication to God is for Israel, that they may be saved</em>-</p><p> "Desire" is a word used only elsewhere about the desire or will of God. Paul was therefore sharing God's desire or passion for Israel. He was praying with his will aligned with that of God, who passionately wishes Israel's salvation, and has millennia of track record in seeking it. As noted on <em><a href='B:520 9:1-3'>Rom 9:1-3</a></em>, that desire of Paul's was to the point of being theoretically willing to sacrifice his own salvation for theirs. This will / desire of God and Paul will finally come to reality, in that all Israel shall indeed be saved (<em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>); but through a redefinition of who is Israel. For "all Israel" being saved must be integrated into the idea that most of Israel shall not be saved, but "a remnant shall be saved" (<em><a href='B:520 9:27'>Rom 9:27</a></em>). That remnant become "all Israel" in God's eyes.</p><p>The language of Israel being saved is used in the Old Testament concerning their Red Sea deliverance from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 14:30'>Exo 14:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:29'>Deu 33:29</a></em>). Paul thereby again identifies himself with Moses. But their salvation from Egypt was not their personal salvation; and the term is used again of Judah's salvation from Babylon, which again they did not make full use of. This perhaps is why <em><a href='B:290 45:17'>Isa 45:17</a></em> says that "Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an&nbsp;<em>everlasting&nbsp;</em>salvation". By being in the Lord Jesus by baptism, in the name of salvation, they could find a salvation which was eternal- a clear reference to eternal life. Only through the ministry of "the Lord our righteousness", whereby God's righteousness is imputed to us through His Son, can Israel finally be saved (<em><a href='B:300 23:6'>Jer 23:6</a></em>). Again, this is all the outworking of the theology of Romans 1-8 in the case of Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:2'>Rom 10:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge</em>-</p><p> Bearing witness is legal language, of which Paul has made frequent usage in Romans 1-8. In the court of Divine judgment, it could be said in mitigation, as it were, that Israel had a zeal for God. But it was not according to knowledge, and the only knowledge worth anything is in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. The idea of&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;knowledge is to be found again in <em><a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a></em>, where we read that through the activity of the Spirit, we are renewed in knowledge&nbsp;<em>kata</em>&nbsp;the mental image of the Lord Jesus. The tension is therefore between attempted legal obedience, and permitting the work of the Spirit. This is the tension which has been explored in chapter 8; accepting imputed righteousness and our inability to be justified by works means accepting the work of the Spirit to transform us in reality to that which we are now by status in Christ. Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, where he had repeatedly argued the same; the Judaist influence in Corinth was not producing spirituality, because they were not making use of the gift of the Spirit in their hearts to transform them (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:5'>2Co 5:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God</em>-</p><p> Their ignorance was not in that they were unaware of the alternative. They were, to translate the Greek literally, 'agnostic' to it, not committed to it, ignorant in the sense that they ignored it. As noted on :2, there is a tension between accepting the work of the Spirit, and on the other hand seeking justification by acts of legal obedience. 'Seeking to establish' continues the courtroom language of :2. They tried to make a case before God in the basis of their own righteousness in terms of obedience to laws. But they failed to make a case; in the terms of Romans 1-8, they stood before God condemned by their sin, with their defence in ruins. The only alternative was to subject themselves beneath God's grace and accept imputed righteousness. The same word is used of our submission to Christ, who is the righteousness of God (<em><a href='B:560 5:24'>Eph 5:24</a></em>). He has been given the power to subdue all things unto Himself s:w:, but we must ourselves choose to make that submission. It is pride in our own puny obedience to a few laws which stops that totality of submission to Him which is required for us to be counted fully righteous.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:4'>Rom 10:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For Christ is the end of the law regarding righteousness to everyone that believes</em>-</p><p> This could be simply saying that for the believer in imputed righteousness, the law is finished as a source of righteousness. We have been given all righteousness in Him, and so the Law is over as a source of righteousness; and this is why Christ ended the Law in His death. But&nbsp;<em>telos</em>, "end", suggests that Christ was the end point of the Law, and the believer in imputed righteousness believes this. If the Law were perfectly obeyed, it would lead to a man who died on the cross with a perfect character- the Lord Jesus. In this sense the Law was not simply a series of types pointing forward to Him; if it were fully obeyed, it would lead to who Jesus was in character and action.</p><p>The idea that the Lord Jesus ended the Law of Moses on the cross needs some reflection. That statement only pushes the question back one stage further- how exactly did He ‘end’ the Law there? How did a man dying on a cross actually end the Law? The Lord Jesus, supremely in His death, was “the end of the law” (<em><a href='B:520 10:4'>Rom 10:4</a></em>). But the Greek&nbsp;<em>telos</em>&nbsp;“end” is elsewhere translated “the goal” (<em><a href='B:610 1:5'>1Ti 1:5</a></em> NIV). The character and person of the Lord Jesus at the end was the goal of the Mosaic law; those 613 commandments, if perfectly obeyed, were intended to give rise to a personality like that of the Lord Jesus. When He reached the climax of His personal development and spirituality, in the moment of His death, the Law was “fulfilled”. He taught that He “came” in order to die; and yet He also “came” in order to “fulfil” the Law (<em><a href='B:470 5:17'>Mat 5:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:5'>Rom 10:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For Moses writes, that the man that does the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby</em>-</p><p> The quotation from <em><a href='B:30 18:5'>Lev 18:5</a></em> could mean that actually perfect obedience would lead to life eternal; but more likely it is simply a statement that the man who obeys all the laws would live "in it" NEV "thereby", referring to the righteousness of the law. He would have blessing in this life, and live this life in the righteousness of the law- and that was it, without any hope of ultimate salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:6'>Rom 10:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the righteousness which is of faith says thus: Do not say in your heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down)</em>-</p><p> The quotation from <em><a href='B:50 30:11-14'>Deu 30:11-14</a></em> is somewhat doctored by Paul. The words in their original context don't seem to be saying what Paul interprets them as meaning; as elsewhere, Old Testament words and phrases are picked up and read in a totally different, Christ-centred light in the New Testament. Paul appears to be teaching that the descent of Christ from Heaven is fundamentally in terms of the action of His Spirit in the heart, which is the sanctification which arises from believing in imputed righteousness as outlined in chapter 8</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:7'>Rom 10:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)</em>-</p><p> The Lord's resurrection enabled the gift of the Spirit in the hearts of the believers, which according to Romans 8 is all part of the wonderful process which follows believing completely in imputed righteousness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:8'>Rom 10:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But what did it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart. That is, the word of faith, which we preach</em>-</p><p> The word of the simple Gospel- that if you believe in Christ you shall be saved- was enabled by the Lord's resurrection and shall come to full term in His descent from Heaven at the last day (:6,7).</p><p>"The word of faith" can simply mean that the basic content of God's word is an appeal for faith in His Son. But it is thereby also true that the word of the Gospel leads to faith. The Lord foresaw in <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em> that there would be those who would believe on Him “through their word” (i:e. the word taught by the disciples). Our word of preaching can bring others to faith. Our preaching leads to faith being created in the hearers. “The word of faith, which we preach” (<em><a href='B:520 10:8'>Rom 10:8</a></em>) is the word (Gospel) that leads to faith; and a man cannot believe without hearing the Gospel, and he will not hear it unless it is preached by a preacher. Paul summarises by saying that faith comes by hearing the Gospel and hearing by the preaching of the word of God (<em><a href='B:520 10:8'>Rom 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:14'>Rom 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>). Paul’s point is that whoever believes will be saved (<em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>)- and therefore, we must preach to all, so that they might take advantage of this blessed opportunity. In his repetitious manner, Paul builds up the argument in this letter:</p><p>- Even under the law, Israel could believe God’s word as preached by Moses and have righteousness imputed to them (<em><a href='B:520 10:5-8'>Rom 10:5-8</a></em>)-</p><p> We preach, in essence, the very same word (<em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>)-</p><p> Isaiah said the same: that belief of his preaching would result in justification (<em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em>)-</p><p> We preach the same. Whoever believes in the Lord’s saving Name by baptism will be saved (<em><a href='B:520 10:12-13'>Rom 10:12-13</a></em>)-</p><p> Therefore preach the word, for without your doing this, people can never believe it and therefore be saved (<em><a href='B:520 10:14-15'>Rom 10:14-15</a></em>)-</p><p> Israel had heard the word of the cross preached in the past, so just hearing the preacher will not automatically result in faith (<em><a href='B:520 10:16-21'>Rom 10:16-21</a></em>). Both preacher and hearer must be aware of this. Therefore there was a need for the preachers to turn to another wider audience, i:e. the Gentiles.</p><p>Note that this passage in Romans 10 reasons that men will only hear the Gospel if there is a preacher, and yet it also states that all men have heard the Gospel, in fulfilment of the prophesy of Psalms 19 that the message would go into all the earth. But later in the same epistle, Paul says that he preached because he wanted to take the Gospel to those “who have not heard” (<em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em>). There must be a connection within his thought with what he wrote in chapter 10, about all men hearing the Gospel through preaching. Surely he understood that the fulfilment of the prophecy that all men will hear the Gospel is purely dependent upon our freewill effort to preach to all men. This understanding inspired Paul to press ahead with his plans to expand Gospel work into Spain; and it should motivate us likewise.</p><p>Paul comments that truly Israel have already heard the essence of the Gospel we preach, in that “the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach” (<em><a href='B:520 10:8'>Rom 10:8</a></em>). He quotes here from <em><a href='B:50 30:12'>Deu 30:12</a></em>: “For this command to be obedient- or, as Paul interprets it, the word of the Gospel... is it not far from thee cp. how God is “not far” from anybody, <em><a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a></em>. It is not in heaven above, that thou shouldest say, Who will ascend for us into heaven, and bring it to us, that we may&nbsp;<em>hear and do it</em>?” (<em><a href='B:50 30:12'>Deu 30:12</a></em> LXX). As Moses spoke these words on the last day of his life, he was at the foot of Nebo, which he ascended for his final meeting with God. He is surely alluding to the way in which he had ‘ascended to heaven’ before in ascending to God on Sinai, fulfilling Israel’s wish that he should bring God’s word to them rather than God Himself speak with them. He had returned bringing God’s word to them, to which they had agreed they would “hear and do”. Earlier, in <em><a href='B:50 5:27'>Deu 5:27</a></em>, Moses had reminded the people how they had said: “Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will&nbsp;<em>hear it, and do</em>&nbsp;it”. Now he is telling them that actually the word he had brought to them needn’t have been brought to them as in essence it was within their hearts. It is for exactly this reason that Paul could reason elsewhere in Romans that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the Law, although they don’t know the letter of the Law. And the same principle is found in <em><a href='B:590 4:9'>1Th 4:9</a></em>: “As touching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves i:e. from within yourselves? are taught of God to love one another”. This is rather like how the Gentiles were not ‘written unto’ and yet they knew from their conscience the essential spirit of the Mosaic Law.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved</em>-</p><p> Being saved is as simple as that. It is belief and not legal obedience which is required.</p><p>Confessing Christ before men applies to baptism, not just bucking up the courage to give someone a tract at work (<em><a href='B:470 10:32'>Mat 10:32</a></em> = <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>). Romans 10; Romans 9, 10 stresses that belief&nbsp;<em>and&nbsp;</em>confession are necessary for salvation. This may be one of the many links between Romans and John’s gospel, in that <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em> speaks of those who believed but wouldn’t confess. Confession, a public showing forth of our belief, is vital if we are to be saved. It’s perhaps worth noting that baptisms tend often to be attended largely by believers, and be performed indoors, e.g. in a bath at someone’s home, or a church hall. It’s quite possible to learn the Gospel, be baptized- and nobody out in this world ever know. It’s down to us to ensure this isn’t true in our case.</p><p>I have wondered, and it’s no more than me wondering, whether it could be that <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:16'>Act 22:16</a></em> and the other references to calling on the name of the Lord at baptism imply that the candidate for baptism made the statement “Jesus is Lord” after their confession of faith or just before their immersion, and then they shouted the word “Abba Father” as they came out of the water, indicating their adoption as a child of God (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:10'>Rom 10:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For with the heart man believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation</em>-</p><p> With the heart (mind / brain) man believes unto salvation and not by legal obedience. It is faith which leads to imputed righteousness; but if we really have believed this wondrous truth, then we will confess it with our mouths. We cannot be passive to it. It's not that witnessing to others is a work to be done for salvation; it is rather the inevitable outcome of having believed within the heart that really, I am counted right before God and in Christ I shall live for ever. The early believers clung to the Lord in whom they had believed "with purpose of&nbsp;<em>heart</em>" (<em><a href='B:510 11:23'>Act 11:23</a></em>). They that had not heard of the cross of Christ were made to see, understand and therefore believe by Paul's preaching (<em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em>). Our appeals likewise must be to the understanding. See on <em><a href='B:510 11:14'>Act 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:19'>Heb 11:19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the scripture says: Whoever believes in him shall not be put to shame</em>-</p><p> The "whoever" in <em><a href='B:290 28:16'>Isa 28:16</a></em> is taken to mean that ethnicity is not important. It is faith and not obedience to any legal code which leads us to not be shamed at the last day, nor today. For <em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em> uses the same word to say that the sure hope we have of salvation, due to righteousness being imputed to us, means that we are not ashamed even now- "Because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us". Those seeking to be unashamed on the basis of their legal obedience have not therefore known the activity of the Spirit within their hearts.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:12'>Rom 10:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em>.</p><p><em>For there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, for the same one who is Lord of all is rich to all that call upon him</em>-</p><p> The "whoever" of <em><a href='B:290 28:16'>Isa 28:16</a></em> means just that, no distinction is made between ethnic groups. The riches given by the Lord Jesus to those who believe are those of the gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>). The early preachers concluded that there was no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile exactly because they saw the gift of the same Spirit to both Jewish and Gentile believers, and the Spirit gift purified the hearts of them all (<em><a href='B:510 15:9'>Act 15:9</a></em>). This was surely why the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit was given to the Gentiles whom Peter was to baptize with Cornelius- to make this same point.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved</em>-</p><p> Salvation was for "whoever", regardless of ethnicity. And salvation was by calling upon oneself the Lord's Name, having His Name / characteristics counted to them- and not by legalistic obedience. This is another way of saying that righteousness is imputed by faith in the Lord Jesus, and demonstrating this by baptism into His Name. The pouring out of the Spirit gifts described in Joel 2 was primarily fulfilled in Acts 2, whilst looking forward to "the great and the terrible day of the Lord". Thus <em><a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a></em> "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered" was fulfilled primarily in the first century too; it is quoted here in <em><a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a></em> in this connection.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:14'>Rom 10:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>How then shall they call on him in whom they do not have belief? And how shall they believe in him about whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?-&nbsp;</em>Paul now demonstrates that believing these things demands in practice that we preach them. People cannot believe these things if they have not heard them. If we grasp the wonder of imputed righteousness in Christ, we should therefore take Him to people, and to Israel in particular. This is where true theology cannot but have a transforming influence in practice. For one cannot be passive to these great truths.</p><p>Here Paul clearly states that (as a general rule) it is impossible to believe in Christ without a preacher. The Ethiopian eunuch was the classic case of this. Bible in hand, his exasperation boiled over: “How can I (understand),&nbsp;<em>except</em>&nbsp;some man shall guide me?" (<em><a href='B:510 8:31'>Act 8:31</a></em>). It is perfectly possible that <em><a href='B:520 10:4'>Rom 10:4</a></em> alludes to this, implying that this man's case was typical and notice the connections between <em><a href='B:510 8:37'>Act 8:37</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em>. Likewise the Lord Jesus spoke of "them also which shall believe on me through&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp; (the preachers') word" (<em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>)- not through their unguided Bible reading. If all we had been given was a Bible, most of us would simply not be where we are today, spiritually. If I had started reading from Genesis, I don't think I'd have got much beyond Leviticus before giving up on the Bible. Yet there are some who have made it through, from Genesis to Revelation. And their testimony is even more emphatic: "Without doubt I needed someone to guide me, I was just crying out for all the pieces to be put into place", in the words of one such recent convert.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:15'>Rom 10:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And how shall they preach, unless they are sent? Even as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things</em>-</p><p> An apostle is a sent one. But the implication is that we are all apostles- grasping the wonder of the salvation possible is of itself the call to preach it. And human need is of itself the call. The prophecy of the Lord Jesus preaching: “How beautiful are the feet of&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;that preaches the Gospel” (<em><a href='B:410 1:15'>Nah 1:15</a></em>)&nbsp; is quoted here with a subtle change of pronoun: “How beautiful are the feet of&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;that preach”. We are the Lord Jesus to this world, because we are brethren in Him. Any who are in Him, having His righteousness imputed to the, counted as Him, must act as Him- and He is the light of the world. So must we be. This alone is a powerful imperative as to who we are, how we speak, the men and women we show ourselves to be. Paul is quoting this Old Testament prophecy about Jesus to prove that we are all “sent” to preach the Gospel. The validity of our commission to preach is quite simply that Jesus Himself preached; in this way we are all personally “sent” to preach, simply because He was sent to preach. As the Father sent Him, so He sends us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:16'>Rom 10:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But they did not all obey the glad tidings. For Isaiah said: Lord, who has believed our report?-&nbsp;</em>This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ. What is true of the Lord Jesus must be true of us, if we are "in Him" and counted by God as Him. In Judaism, the prophets were seen as a saintly group to whom no ordinary person could pretend. But both the Messiah and Isaiah are here being cited as patterns for all who are "in Christ". The identity between Christian preachers and Isaiah also demonstrates that the essence of the Gospel "glad tidings" was preached in the Old Testament. Isaiah's lament here is of Judah refusing the good news of Messiah in his day, and that is just what happened in the first century. Isaiah's lament is that despite the amazing achievement of Messiah and God's offer of grace in Him, Jewry generally had not believed it.</p><p>The theme of Romans is the Gospel, and in this context Paul makes the point that because both Jew and Gentile are saved by the Gospel,&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;we should preach to both Jew and Gentile (<em><a href='B:520 10:9-18'>Rom 10:9-18</a></em>). In this context, Paul quotes from <em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:410 1:15'>Nah 1:15</a></em>, both concerning preaching to Israel: "How shall they hear without a preacher? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of&nbsp;<em>them</em>&nbsp;(cp. 'he' in the originals- our preaching is a manifestation of the Lord) that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings". The Nahum passage is in the context of preaching to Israel the good news of their ultimate freedom from the Assyrian invasion which was then imminent. We are in a strikingly parallel situation in these last days. <em><a href='B:520 10:16'>Rom 10:16</a></em> then goes on to quote <em><a href='B:290 53:1'>Isa 53:1</a></em>, which again refers to the preaching of the Gospel to Israel, and applies it to our preaching.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So belief comes of hearing, and hearing by the word of God</em>-</p><p> "Hearing" is the same Greek word translated "report" in :16. It refers more to our preaching than to their hearing. We can play a part in the faith of others; our preaching is their hearing, and without it, they cannot believe. God has delegated His purpose and the progress of His work to us. The responsibility is huge. Faith comes by hearing God’s word. But we can hear (or in our generation, read) God’s word without faith (<em><a href='B:620 3:15'>2Ti 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:2'>Heb 4:2</a></em>). Bible reading, like every other spiritual exercise, can become a mere formality. "The word of God" here as often in the New Testament refers to the message of God in Christ, the Gospel, rather than every verse in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, including the Chronicles genealogies. Our reporting / preaching NEV "hearing" is&nbsp;<em>dia&nbsp;</em>the word of God. This is not quite the same as saying that we preach the word of God; that would be phrased differently in Greek. Our preaching is on account of the word; it is motivated by the wonder of the word we have ourselves heard.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:18'>Rom 10:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I say: Did they not hear? Yes, truly, their sound went out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world</em>-</p><p> Paul is doubtless alluding to the great commission here. But he says that it is fulfilled by the preachers spoken of in <em><a href='B:230 19:1-4'>Psa 19:1-4</a></em>, which he quotes. This speaks of the "heavens" declaring God's gospel world-wide. In the same way as the sun 'goes forth' all over the world, so will the "heavens" go forth to declare the Gospel. The 'heavens' do not just refer to the twelve in the first century; the New Testament says that all in Christ are the "heavenlies"; we are all part of the "sun of righteousness". The arising of Christ as the sun at His second coming (<em><a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a></em>) will be heralded by the church witnessing the Gospel of His coming beforehand. The enthusiast will note a number of other preaching allusions in Psalms 19 : "The firmament&nbsp;<em>sheweth</em>&nbsp;his handiwork" (v:1) uses a word (in the Septuagint) which occurs in <em><a href='B:490 9:60'>Luk 9:60</a></em> concerning the publishing of the Gospel. "Their&nbsp;<em>line</em>&nbsp;is gone out through all the earth" (v:4) is picked up by Paul in describing his preaching (<em><a href='B:540 10:13-16'>2Co 10:13-16</a></em> AVmg:). The idea of 'going out' throughout the earth was clearly at the root of Christ's great commission (<em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). Yet, as we have said, the “heavens" to which this refers in Psalms 19 are interpreted by the New Testament as referring to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;believers in Christ. We have to ask whether David really had this interpretation in mind when he wrote Psalms 19. Probably not, but New Testament quotation of the Old is clearly at liberty in taking words out of context and applying them to Christian themes. We are not permitted to wrest Scripture from its context as we are not inspired; but the Spirit within both Paul and David was the same and can rework the words as needed. And yet on a human level, David was one of Paul's heroes; to the point&nbsp;that David's words are quoted by him with the preface: "<em>I</em>&nbsp;say...". But it was the same Spirit working through both men. See on :20.</p><p>Israel 'heard' the word, and yet they did not ''hearken" to it (<em><a href='B:520 10:16'>Rom 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:18'>Rom 10:18</a></em>)- we can hear but not hear. Yet if we&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>believed that Scripture is inspired, we wouldn't be like this. It is awesome to reflect how those Hebrew letters, those Greek ciphers written on parchment 1950 years ago, were actually the very words of God Almighty. But this is the real import of our understanding of inspiration. Israel literally 'heard' the words of Ezekiel, knowing that a prophet had been among them- but they weren't obedient. We too can pay such lip service to the doctrine of inspiration- and yet not be truly obedient to the word we know to be inspired.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:19'>Rom 10:19</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>But I say: Did Israel not know? First Moses said: I will provoke you to jealousy with those who are no nation, with a nation void of understanding will I anger you-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Paul sees the Jewish anger at Gentile conversion to Christ as a reflection of their jealousy. If Gentiles became followers of some idol cult, the Jews would have been indifferent. But their jealousy was provoked by Israel accepting Jesus of Nazareth as God's Son and Saviour. This jealousy was and is surely a reflection of a bad conscience, just as subconsciously Joseph's brothers knew that Joseph was not dead but alive, and standing before them. It was Israel's 'knowledge' of the Gospel they had heard which is related by Paul to their anger and jealousy. And we see the same today in many who exhibit anger and jealousy over the faith of others. This is a function of their 'knowledge' which they are in denial of.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:20'>Rom 10:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And Isaiah is very bold, and said: I was found by those that did not seek Me; I showed myself to those who were not asking for Me</em>-</p><p> Paul, having the same Divine Spirit as Isaiah, sensed that Isaiah spoke those inspired words in a "very bold" manner, daring manner (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 5:7'>Rom 5:7</a></em>). See on :18. The fact Gentiles found God in Christ when they were not seeking Him is an exemplification of the ideas of predestination and calling which have been introduced in chapter 8 as the supreme example of God's grace. The element of calling, of finding God when we were not looking for Him, is an example of that higher hand in our lives which is of grace alone. "Seek and you shall find" is here as it were subverted. It's not that God is hiding behind a set of cards or has set up the Bible as a riddle between Him and men, which few figure out. He shows Himself to those who aren't even seeking. This is grace indeed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 10:21'>Rom 10:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But to Israel He said: All the day long did I spread out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people</em>-</p><p> The implication of "all the day long" is that Israel's day of opportunity was over. The spreading out of hands towards someone is a picture of a father teaching a child to walk, urging them to take their first faltering steps towards his opening arms. And this was just the figure used of God to Israel in <em><a href='B:350 11:3'>Hos 11:3</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I say then, has God cast off His people? God forbid For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin</em>-</p><p> As we will see on :2, God has cast off Israel but has not cast off His people in that a minority of them, like Paul, have accepted the Lord Jesus. Thereby His people, His Israel, have been redefined. The casting away of natural Israel led to the reconciling of the Gentile world (:15). So clearly they were cast away. "You are not My people" (<em><a href='B:350 1:9-10'>Hos 1:9-10</a></em>) is clear enough; they can only again become God's people if they are reconciled in the last days (<em><a href='B:350 1:10'>Hos 1:10</a></em>). God broke His covenant relationship with His former people just as a stick is broken in two (<em><a href='B:450 11:10-11'>Zec 11:10-11</a></em>). God and Israel are, in another analogy, in a state of divorce, and He has remarried. Paul sees his own conversion as the evidence that God still has a people, and he urges other Jews to emulate his example (:14). The same word for 'cast off' is used of how Israel cast off Moses (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>) just as they did Messiah; and Paul uses the word in saying how the Jews had 'cast off' God's word in Christ (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>). So the situation arose because Israel themselves had cast off God.</p><p>It's possible to read this another way, whereby Israel are not 'cast off' because the faithfulness of a minority of them is counted to the rest. Therefore in some sense, God has cast off His people (<em><a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:450 10:6'>Zec 10:6</a></em>); and yet, because a minority of them will always accept Christ, it is not true that God has cast off His people in a total sense, in that 'Israel' has been redefined; now Jews as well as Gentiles must be baptized into Christ if they wish to be the seed of Abraham. It was only because of this faithful remnant even in Old Testament times that Israel had not become like Sodom (<em><a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a></em>)- even though Old Testament passages such as Ezekiel 16 clearly liken Jerusalem to Sodom. Yet they are not as Sodom ultimately, for the sake of the remnant who will believe. Perfectly in this context, Paul draws out the lesson from Elijah’s mistake (<em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em>); Elijah had thought that God had totally cast Israel off, but he didn’t appreciate that there was a remnant of faithful within Israel. And the existence of that remnant may likewise have been concealed from the Christian church, Paul is perhaps implying. Only&nbsp;<em>part&nbsp;</em>of Israel are blind to Messiah; a majority, but not all of them (<em><a href='B:520 11:5'>Rom 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:7'>Rom 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). I don’t think that Paul is merely speaking of the situation in the first century, where clearly some Jews did believe. I say this because <em><a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a></em> states that Israel will never be “cast off”; yet, according to Romans 11, Israel are only not cast off because some of them do believe in Christ. The fact Israel are not now totally “cast off” therefore indicates that there always will be a remnant of faithful Jews- faithful to God’s Son and trusting in grace rather than law (<em><a href='B:520 11:6'>Rom 11:6</a></em>). Therefore we should be hopeful that at least a remnant will respond to our preaching to them. The Jews who do not believe were “cast off” at the very time the world was reconciled to God, i:e. when they crucified Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 11:15'>Rom 11:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 5:10-11'>Rom 5:10-11</a></em>). It was through their “trespass” in crucifying Him that salvation came (<em><a href='B:520 11:11'>Rom 11:11</a></em> RVmg:). And the resurrection and second coming which actualizes that salvation will only come once they repent (<em><a href='B:520 11:15'>Rom 11:15</a></em>). So, Israel as a whole are not “cast off” because of the remnant of Jews who will always believe in the grace of Christ; but those individuals who crucified the Lord and uphold that position have cast themselves off from God. The practical upshot of all this is that we should preach to Israel, with faith that some will repent</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>God did not cast off His people, whom He foreknew-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :1, God did cast off His people; the axe was laid at the root of the tree and it was cut down, or in another image, it was dried up from the roots even from the time of the Lord's ministry. But God's purpose with Israel continued in that Israel and 'God's people' were redefined. So I suggest we need to read the statement here as meaning 'His people-whom-He-foreknew'. The foreknown ones were not cast off; the rest were. And earlier in Romans, Paul has laboured the point that it is the believers in Christ who are the foreknown (<em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em> s:w:). For the Lord Jesus Christ was the ultimately 'foreknown' One (<em><a href='B:670 1:20'>1Pe 1:20</a></em> s:w:), and those in Him are likewise foreknown. Paul goes on to equate the foreknown ones with the remnant at Elijah's time. The "His people" doesn't therefore refer to Israel generically, but the faithful remnant. That remnant of course have not been cast off; but as demonstrated in chapters 9 and 10, mere physical descent from Abraham doesn't make anyone 'God's people'; for Ishmael and many others were descended from Abraham too.</p><p><em>Or do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah? How he pleads with God against Israel</em>-</p><p> “I, even I&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;am left" was Elijah's cry to God as he realized the depth of Israel's apostasy (<em><a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a></em>). But this was interpreted by God as a prayer for God to condemn Israel (<em><a href='B:520 11:2-3'>Rom 11:2-3</a></em>). God read what was in Elijah's heart, and counted this as his prayer. Elijah prayed to God against Israel when he told Him that he alone was left faithful- i:e. he was asking God to destroy the nation now. Our essential feelings are read by the Father as prayers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:3'>Rom 11:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have destroyed Your altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life-&nbsp;There</em>&nbsp;is such a thing as feeling lonely when we needn’t. Elijah is an example of this; he felt that he was “left alone” faithful in Israel- even though there were another 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (<em><a href='B:520 11:3'>Rom 11:3</a></em>). The Hebrew in 1 Kings is hard to translate. It could mean that God reserved 7,000 of Elijah’s brothers and sisters who potentially would not bow the knee to Baal. Yet Elijah didn’t want to see the potential of his brethren. He set himself in a league above them, like the Psalmist, saying in his haste that all men are liars (<em><a href='B:230 116:11'>Psa 116:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:4'>Rom 11:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But what was the answer of God to him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed their knee to Baal</em>-</p><p> "Left for myself" is the key phrase. These had been preserved by grace. God had worked in their lives to keep them faithful. And yet they were not openly associated with Elijah; their faith was weak, we can conclude; they included the likes of Obadiah who although counted faithful, still presumably went along with the appearance of Baal worship. These 7000 were therefore counted righteous, preserved by grace- and that is the exact context of Romans.</p><p>It may be that Paul's equation of the Jewish believers of the first century with the seven thousand who refused to worship Baal has a literal application (<em><a href='B:520 11:4'>Rom 11:4</a></em>) in that there were about 7,000 Jewish believers. By the time of <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em> "the number of the men (that believed) had come to be (Greek- not as AV) about five thousand". The only verse that seems to contradict this impression is <em><a href='B:510 21:20'>Act 21:20</a></em>: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe". However, the Greek word translated "many" is nowhere else translated like this. The sense really is 'You know what thousands believe'- i:e. 'you know the number of Jewish believers, it's in the thousands'. See on <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>.</p><p>Reflect on how God's mercy is far greater than the mercy of man- even if we are talking about very loving and spiritual people. Elijah told God that only he was faithful, and the rest of the ecclesia of Israel had turned away. God said that in&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;eyes, there were another 7,000 faithful. Paul uses this as an example of how all of us are like that 7,000- those saved by God's grace (<em><a href='B:520 11:4-5'>Rom 11:4-5</a></em>). So Elijah was a spiritual man; but by His grace, God thought much higher of Elijah's brethren than Elijah did.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:5'>Rom 11:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant, according to the calling of grace</em>-</p><p> As noted on :4, the remnant in Elijah's time were counted as righteous. But this was by grace. Chapter 8 has powerfully made the point that the whole concept of calling requires grace; the fact some are called and others aren't is one of the most obvious examples of grace. The "remnant" were now God's people.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:6'>Rom 11:6</a></em> – see on <em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>.</p><p><em>But if it is by grace, it is no more of works. Otherwise grace is no more grace</em>-</p><p> The concept of grace has no meaning if works are required. The AV and other MSS add to the effect that "work is no more work". We must add in an ellipsis: "Justification by work". We cannot be justified by work, the concept loses meaning, if calling is by grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:7'>Rom 11:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The chosen obtained it, but the rest were hardened</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:520 10:20'>Rom 10:20</a></em> has said that the Gentiles were not seeking salvation but were given it; Israel was seeking but didn't obtain, because their searching was not in faith. The chosen / elected by grace obtained it when not looking for it; this is grace itself. "The rest", i:e. Israel, were hardened just as Pharaoh was hardened. They were treated as the Gentile world because that is where they were in their hearts. And yet even Pharaoh had a chance of salvation; and his hardening was a confirmation of his hardening of his own heart:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:8'>Rom 11:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>According as it is written: God gave them a spirit of stupour, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, to this very day</em>-</p><p> This explains in more detail what it means to have a hardened heart (:7). There is a psychological operation performed on the spirit or the mind- by the Spirit. This is in contrast to how God's Spirit works to call by grace; for&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, "grace", essentially means a gift, and often refers to the gift of God's Spirit. The faithful were 'left' by grace. This is why chapter 8 goes on from talking about election and grace to speak of the Spirit gift in the heart.</p><p>The repentance of Israel will be associated with an opening of their eyes to God's word. "The Lord hath poured out upon (Israel) the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes (quoted in <em><a href='B:520 11:8'>Rom 11:8</a></em> concerning Israel's blindness to Christ)... the vision of all (God's word) is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed... (but) in that day (of the Kingdom) shall the deaf hear the words of the book" (<em><a href='B:290 29:10-11'>Isa 29:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 29:17-18'>Isa 29:17-18</a></em>). This will be when the book is&nbsp;<em>un</em>sealed at "the time of the end" (<em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em>). It will be in our last days that Israel's blindness starts to be cured, thanks to a Word-based revival, led by the Elijah ministry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:9'>Rom 11:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 1:20'>Act 1:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>And David said: Let their table be made a snare and a trap and a stumblingblock and a recompense unto them</em>-</p><p> Whilst "their table" can refer to a materialistic enjoyment of the things of this life, we will later suggest that the Jew in view who have stumbled are those who had initially accepted Christ in the first century, and were now stumbling from the way. This is the theme of Hebrews, the letters of Peter and other New Testament material. Their table therefore would more likely refer to their attitude to a closed table, at which they forbad Gentile believers or any others whom they feared would lead them to guilt by association. It was and is this exclusive, superior attitude which causes legalists to stumble in a spiritual sense. it is their "recompense", their reward in this life only. But their exclusivity becomes a snare and trap to them spiritually. This is the concern of Paul so often; that refusing to accept other believers will cause spiritual stumbling to the supposedly elite:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:10'>Rom 11:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and bend their back forever</em>-</p><p> This darkening of Jewish hearts / eyes has been spoken of in <em><a href='B:520 1:21'>Rom 1:21</a></em> (s:w:), and I have argued on chapter 1 that 'Jews' and 'Gentiles' refer specifically to the Jewish and Gentile Christian converts within the church at Rome- rather than to Jews and Gentiles in some generic, global sense. As noted on :10, what is in view here is the stumbling of Jewish Christian believers out of the way, leading to their being cut off from the Christ-olive tree. '"Bend the back" uses the same word as just used in <em><a href='B:520 11:4'>Rom 11:4</a></em> for those who bowed the knee to Baal. They would be confirmed in their idolatry. And perhaps the reference is to how the Christian Jews who fell away from faith would eternally bow down at the last judgment (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:11'>Rom 11:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>I say then, did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid But by their fall, salvation came to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy</em>-</p><p> God did not just make them fall for the sake of it. Paul's vision was of the Jews being provoked by seeing the Gentiles rejoicing in the grace of Abrahamic salvation; and responding by also accepting it. Whether however this was God's intention or simply Paul's fantasy is not clear; he will write in :14 that he aims at provoking his Jewish brethren to emulate him in turning to salvation by grace in Christ. Whether he really achieved that aim is questionable; and in any case he was sent to the Gentiles and not to the Jews. I have noted throughout commentary on Acts that Paul became obsessed with preaching to the Jews and this at times led him to exaggerate positions in relation to his hopes for them. The language of stumbling and falling encourages us to assume that "the Jews" in view are not Israelites generally, but Jews who had initially accepted Christ but had now stumbled from Him and fallen; for stumbling is relevant to believers rather than those who have never professed a faith in Christ. The fall of Israel enabled the salvation of the Gentiles because there appear to be a specific number of saved persons; and if the Jews didn't want their places, then as in the parable of the feast, the places had to be filled by others. This will now be stated explicitly in :12.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:12'>Rom 11:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now if their fall is the riches of the world-&nbsp;</em>The whole failure of Israel became "riches for the world", the "riches" which by predestination are poured out upon the vessels of mercy (<em><a href='B:520 9:23'>Rom 9:23</a></em>). Nothing is ultimately wasted or lost. Nothing can be done against the Truth (<em><a href='B:540 13:8'>2Co 13:8</a></em>). Meditate on your own life and identify the countless failures through which, especially as you look back over time, the "invisible" hand of God is discernible:&nbsp;The 'enriching' was not just in that Gentiles could have hope of eternity in the future, at the Lord's return. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:560 3:16'>Eph 3:16</a></em> of the current enrichment of believers by "his Spirit in the inner man". This enrichment by the gift of the Spirit is so much a part of believing; indeed Israel refused so much spiritually.</p><p><em>And their loss the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness?</em>-</p><p> "Loss" is literally 'their diminishing' (as AV); the idea is to their diminished numbers compared to the intention that the seed be as the sand of the seashore for multitude. But their resignation as it were opened up their places for the Gentiles, which is the idea of :25 speaking of how the full number of the Gentiles must come in. The places at the marriage supper must be filled up; the diminished number of Jews taking the places meant that the Gentiles had to be compelled to come in, even though according to the parable such an invitation was not at all what they were seeking for (see on :7). If Jewish rejection of the Gospel was associated with such rich blessing being shared- how much more shall their final acceptance of the Gospel, thus making up the "fulness" or full number of redeemed, be associated with blessing to the world in the form of God's Kingdom on earth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:13'>Rom 11:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I speak to you who are Gentiles- inasmuch as I am an apostle of the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry</em>-</p><p> The believers in Rome were split between Jews and Gentiles. My reconstruction is that some of the Jewish Christians were returning to Judaism and the synagogue system, as indeed was happening throughout the empire and not least in the Jerusalem church. By speaking of the immense spiritual wealth coming to the Gentile believers, Paul says he was seeking to provoke the Jews to accepting grace. But Paul's letter to the Romans was not going to provoke the Jews generally; but it could provoke the Jewish Christians in Rome who would hear or read it. I will later suggest that it is these lapsed Jewish Christians who are the branches which had been broken off the olive tree. Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, but I have suggested throughout commentary on Acts that Paul never completely accepted this as he might have done. He decided to interpret the ministry to the Gentiles as a way of provoking Jewish conversion. Acts records how consistently he arrived in a town and sought to provoke the Jews immediately- and suffered hugely because of it. For it was Jewish opposition which led to his various tribulations, which he could have been spared if he had been content to let Peter witness to the Jews:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:14'>Rom 11:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them</em>-</p><p> As noted above, Paul did indeed provoke the Jews to jealousy but there is no record of this policy actually being successful in eliciting Jewish conversion.</p><p>In Paul’s case, being all things to all men meant that at times He sacrificed highest principle in order to get through to men; He didn’t just baldly state doctrinal truth and leave his hearers with the problem of whether to accept it. He really sought to persuade men. He magnified his ministry of preaching to the Gentiles, he emphasized the possibility of Gentile salvation, “If by any means I may provoke to emulation ‘incite to rivalry’ them which are my flesh the Jews, and might save some of them” (<em><a href='B:520 11:13-14'>Rom 11:13-14</a></em>). This hardly seems a very appropriate method, under the spotlight of highest principle. But it was a method Paul used. Likewise he badgers the Corinthians into giving money for the poor saints in Jerusalem on the basis that he has boasted to others of how much they would give (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>), and these boasts had provoked others to be generous; so now, they had better live up to their promise and give the cash. If somebody promised to give money to charity and then didn’t do so, we wouldn’t pressurize them to give. And we wouldn’t really encourage one ecclesia to give money on the basis of telling them that another ecclesia had promised to be very generous, so they ought to be too. Yet these apparently human methods were used by Paul. He spoke “in human terms” to the Romans, “because of the infirmity of your flesh” (<em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> NIV); he so wanted to make his point understood. And when he told husbands to love their wives, he uses another rather human reason: that because your wife is “one flesh” with you, by loving her you are loving yourself. ‘And’, he reasons, ‘you wouldn’t hate yourself, would you, so – love your wife’. The cynic could reasonably say that this is pure selfishness (<em><a href='B:560 5:29'>Eph 5:29</a></em>); and Paul seems to recognize that the higher level of understanding is that a husband should love his wife purely because he is manifesting the love of Christ to an often indifferent and unappreciative ecclesia (<em><a href='B:560 5:32-33'>Eph 5:32-33</a></em>). And yet Paul plainly uses the lower level argument too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:15'>Rom 11:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?</em>-</p><p> Israel were indeed cast away- see on :1 and :2. The opportunity for the reconciling of the Gentile world arose, as Paul sees it, from Israel's rejection of the Gospel. But he foresaw that finally, they would accept the Gospel in the last days, and this would be associated with the resurrection of the dead. Paul as all true Christians acted as if the last day was imminent, and therefore sought earnestly for Israel's repentance- just as we should. He saw this as the great precursor to the resurrection of the last day. He argues the same in :26- the Messianic deliverer comes to Zion to bring Jacob back to God. The parable of fruit on the fig tree taught the same- that generation would see all thing fulfilled. We likewise ought to seek Jewish repentance in order to hasten the day of the Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:16'>Rom 11:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump; and if the root is holy, so are the branches</em>-</p><p> The "firstfruit" is the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 15:20'>1Co 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:23'>1Co 15:23</a></em>), and the lump always elsewhere refers to the mass of believers (<em><a href='B:520 9:21'>Rom 9:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:6-7'>1Co 5:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:9'>Gal 5:9</a></em>). The holiness of the Lord Jesus is imputed to all in Him. This leads us to likewise connect "the root" with the Lord Jesus and the "branches" with all in Him. <em><a href='B:520 15:12'>Rom 15:12</a></em> (along with <em><a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 22:16'>Rev 22:16</a></em>) will define "the root" as the Lord Jesus. The parable of the vine in John 15 is so similar- the Lord Jesus is the vine, we are the branches, and those who do not bear fruit are cut off from Him. The similarity with this allusion to the olive tree is exact. Perhaps the olive is chosen because Paul's theme is the ministry of the Spirit, and the oil of the olive tree is more appropriate for that symbolism. The branches are made holy by their association with the root- this connects with the entire theme of imputed righteousness which Romans has so far developed.</p><p>Paul makes an association between Job and Israel in <em><a href='B:520 11:16-17'>Rom 11:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:30'>Rom 11:30</a></em>:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Romans 11&nbsp;</td><td>Job</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:35 "Who hath first given to Him,&nbsp;and it shall be recompensed unto&nbsp;Him again?". This is countering&nbsp;the Jewish reasoning that they were self-righteous and were&nbsp;giving their righteousness as a&nbsp;gift to God, for which they&nbsp;were blessed.</td><td>Elihu similarly rebukes the self-righteous Job: "If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? Or what receiveth&nbsp;He of thine hand?" (<em><a href='B:220 35:7'>Job 35:7</a></em>). Without this key from Job it would be&nbsp;hard to understand what 'gift'&nbsp; <em><a href='B:520 11:35'>Rom 11:35</a></em> was&nbsp;speaking about.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>:16,17 use the figure of roots and branches to describe the&nbsp;Broken branches refer to the&nbsp;apostate Jews:&nbsp;</td><td>Bildad speaks of the&nbsp;wicked (i:e. <em><a href='B:220 18:4'>Job 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 18:7'>Job 18:7</a></em> clearly Jews:&nbsp; refer to him)&nbsp; "his roots shall be dried&nbsp;up beneath, and&nbsp;above shall his branch be cut off" (<em><a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a></em>)</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:17'>Rom 11:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and did become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree-&nbsp;</em>The breaking off of the branches is because they bear no fruit, according to the parable of the vine in John 15. The wild olive likewise is characterized by bearing no fruit. The Gentiles were therefore grafted in by grace- they had the same deficit of fruit as did the Jews. They were grafted in not because they were more fruitful. Fruit refers to the fruit of the Spirit; this is of the essence. The grafted branches must partake of the fatness, the oily-ness Gk:, of the root. They must partake of the spirit of Christ and thereby bear fruit- otherwise they too would be cut off. The figure of the olive rather than the fig is perhaps used in order to highlight this aspect of the oil / Spirit. The same word for "partaker" is used of our partaking of grace the "gift" of the Spirit of Christ and the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:570 1:7'>Phi 1:7</a></em>). The word&nbsp;<em>sug-koinos</em>&nbsp;suggests co-fellowship; and fellowship is with a person, the root, the Lord Jesus. The broken off branches had therefore once been in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus and partakers of His Spirit / fatness. The figure requires that the broken off branches were one time Jewish Christian believers, and not Israel in a generic sense. The vine parable of John 15 likewise requires the branches to refer to those in Christ who were later broken off from the Christ-vine.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:18'>Rom 11:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do not boast over the broken branches, for you are but branches too. For if you boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root supports you</em>-</p><p> "Supports" is literally 'to carry' and is later used in Romans of the Lord Jesus bearing our sins on the cross (<em><a href='B:520 15:1-2'>Rom 15:1-2</a></em>). Awareness that He carries our sins will remove all boasting against those who have fallen away or respond less to Him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You will say then: Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in-&nbsp;</em>Often the Bible addresses the reader in the second person, as if he is actually present in the mind of the writer (e.g. <em><a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:15'>Rom 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:16'>1Co 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:35'>1Co 15:35</a></em>). Such personalizing of Scripture is essentially how to study the Bible:&nbsp;Paul agrees that in a sense, yes, the Jewish branches were broken off so that the Gentiles could be grafted in. But :24 says that the ingrafted branches had been cut off from their own wild olive tree. They were therefore 'dead' branches. This is an apparent horticultural blunder. A dead, rejected branch can't get life by being tied on to a living tree. But in the miracle of redemption by the grace of the Spirit, this is how it will be. The oil / fatness / Spirit of the olive tree is such that even a dead branch can be revived by it. Verse 24 recognizes the intentional blunder by saying that Gentiles have been grafted "contrary to nature":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:20'>Rom 11:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Well. Because of their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Be not highminded, but fear-&nbsp;</em>The "unbelief" in view is not in that these Christian Jews had never believed. The "unbelief" appears to be that of <em><a href='B:650 3:12'>Heb 3:12</a></em>, where the same word is used of how the Hebrew Christians were prone to a heart of unbelief by departing from their faith in Christ and returning to the Law. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:21'>Rom 11:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if God spared not the natural branches, neither will He spare you</em>-</p><p> The key issue is whether there was the bearing of fruit. The connection with earlier reasoning in Romans is perhaps in the same word being used of how God did not spare His own Son (<em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>). This means that He will not spare in judgment those who refuse to accept Him. The language of 'not sparing' is that of judgment; Paul reasons as if judgment had already come, in essence, for those who rejected His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>Behold then the goodness and severity of God: Towards those that fell, severity; but toward you, God's goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also shall be cut off</em>-</p><p> "Goodness" is the word used in <em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em> for how the Jewish Christians had despised God's goodness and refused to repent. The severe language of judgment used in chapters 1 and 2 appears to refer specifically to judgment upon those Jews in the Roman church who had turned away from Christ. The letter has opened with the description of their judgment, the cutting off of the Jewish branches, and warns the Gentile converts that they must not behave likewise but rather continue in His goodness. The Greek for "severity" means literally sharpness or an abrupt cut. It connects with the idea of the branches being cut off. But it is "those that fell" who are cut off; and so the 'cutting off' is again only a confirmation of their own falling off from the tree.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:23'>Rom 11:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, shall be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again</em>-</p><p> If they could be grafted in "again" then they had at one time enjoyed the status of the wild olive branches who were grafted in by baptism into Christ. It follows that the cut off branches had likewise at one stage been in Christ. Jew and Gentile are being used here as they are for the most part in the early chapters of Romans- referring not to Jew and Gentile as generic, global terms; but rather specifically to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome. God's ability "is able",&nbsp;<em>dunamos,&nbsp;</em>His power to graft them in again reveals that nobody is forced to condemnation by God' will. Those who are called can always reconnect with the tree. We notice though that it is not simply a case of a cut off branch drifting back into the olive tree. That might be true on the level of social club interaction; but the re-joining of the olive tree is a specific operation by God, connecting a person back in to the flow of the spirit of Christ, the oil of the olive.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:24'>Rom 11:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 4:4'>2Co 4:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>For if you were cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more appropriately shall these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?</em>-</p><p> The "contrary to nature" is a reference to how dead branches are not grafted onto living trees and thereby somehow brought to life. The whole analogy here is to demonstrate the power of the spirit of Christ, the oil of the olive, and of God's grace, in bringing spiritual life to the dead. We note that the Gentiles were cut off from the wild olive and were warned that they could also be cut off from the good olive, if they followed Israel's example. This is true of so many- they cut off from the world, and then if they fall away from Christ, they are cut off from the community in Him. And they are of all men most miserable.</p><p>The "times of the Gentiles" (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>) appears to refer to the time of Gentile opportunity to learn the Gospel, according to how Paul alludes to it in <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>.</p><p>The Gospel is fulfilled by preaching it. And the Gospel is essentially the promises to Abraham, about all nations being blessed. This promise is fulfilled in our preaching of it- which is why the Acts references to the disciples being " multiplied" consciously refers to the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham about the multiplication of the seed. “The fullness of the Gentiles” (<em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>) also refers to this idea of the final number of converted Gentiles being a fullness or fulfilment- of the promises to Abraham. But that fulfilment, as with that of many prophecies, is dependent upon and according to our preaching of the Gospel. See on <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Brothers, I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part has befallen Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles is made up</em>-</p><p> The partial hardening doesn't mean that their hearts were a bit soft and partly hard; for :8-10 is clear that they were indeed hardened and blinded. The "in part" refers to Israel as a whole; part of God's "Israel", the full number of the saved, had been hardened. The numbers of ethnic Jews in the final number of "Israel" had been diminished (see on :12) and so the Gentiles were being brought in to make up the numbers. This was no reason for Gentile boasting; the repeated warnings against this could suggest that there was friction in the Roman church over this matter. The Gentiles were as the street people dragged in to make up the numbers at the wedding feast, being invited to something they had not been searching for.</p><p>Although Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, I understand <em><a href='B:520 11:25-26'>Rom 11:25-26</a></em> to mean that he preached to the Gentiles motivated by the knowledge that when the full number of the Gentiles had “come in”, then “all Israel” would be saved by the Jews then turning to Christ. Paul understands "Israel" as the full number of those who shall be finally saved. Once the allotted number of Gentiles had come in, Paul seems to see the final number of "Israel" being made up by the latter day conversion of some ethnic Israelites. This alone indicates how we should preach to Israel in the last days. Paul thought he was in the last days and so he did so.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And so all Israel shall be saved. Even as it is written: There shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob</em>-</p><p> "All Israel" refers to the full number of "Israel"; I suggested on :25 that Paul understands "Israel" as the specific number of the redeemed. This number, "Israel" in full number (:25), will be made up by the conversion of ethnic Israelites at the Lord's coming.</p><p>The Lord will come to those who have turned from ungodliness in Jacob, the latter day remnant who repent (<em><a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a></em>); although Paul's citation of this is deliberately altered to teach the truth that the&nbsp;<em>majority</em>&nbsp;of Israel will not turn before He comes. To them He will come and turn ungodliness away from them (<em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>).</p><p>In the final conflict between Israel and her enemies, God's confirmation of men will be clearly seen. The Gentile nations will be gathered to make the final invasion by the Lord's evil spirits confirming their evil spirit, whilst the repentant remnant of Israel will be confirmed in their regrets by having "the spirit of grace and supplications" poured on them (<em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em>), i:e. a desire and ability to powerfully supplicate the Father for forgiveness. If men wish to turn from their sins, God will turn them. Thus "the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob" (<em><a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a></em>) is changed by the Spirit into: "There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (<em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>). Those who turn from sin are turned from sin by the Lord. The blessing promised to Abraham was not only forgiveness of sins, but that the Lord Jesus would&nbsp;<em>turn away</em>&nbsp;Abraham's seed from their iniquities (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>). Yet we only become Abraham's seed by repentance and baptism. Our repentance and desire not to sin is therefore confirmed after our baptism.</p><p>Be aware that many NT passages mix a number of OT passages in one 'quotation'; e.g. "The deliverer will come from Zion" (<em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>) is a conflated quotation of <em><a href='B:230 14:7'>Psa 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 53:6'>Psa 53:6</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a></em>. See on <em><a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:27'>Rom 11:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And this is My covenant to them, when I shall take away their sins</em>-</p><p> Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 34-36 are clear that the covenant which the latter day Jews shall enter into is the new covenant, which Christians now are part of. That new covenant, according to Romans, was that contained in the promises to Abraham. Both ethnic Jews and Gentiles alike need to be baptized into Christ for that covenant to be made with them. The point of this statement seems to be that the sins of the ethnic Jews will be taken away by their baptism into Christ and acceptance of the new covenant in Him. And this will happen in the last days.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:28'>Rom 11:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but as touching their calling, they are beloved for the fathers' sake</em>-</p><p> The unbelieving Jews are alienated from God, and in God's master plan, their failure was made use of in that it enabled the empty places in "Israel", at the marriage supper, to be filled up by Gentiles. Their alienation from God was therefore positively seen as for the sake of Gentile salvation. Yet those of them who are called to the Gospel in the last days will be called specifically because of their ethnic identity- for their fathers' sake. That may appear to contradict the earlier statements that ethnicity and descent from Abraham are worthless; but Paul is building up to the climax of grace in the events of the last days, where grace will be seen to transcend every law and principle, no matter how noble of itself.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>For God has shut up all to disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all</em>-</p><p> The "all" appears to be that of :26 "All Israel" (see note there). All those within the number of the redeemed, known as "Israel", have at some point been disobedient; and that disobedience was within God's purpose, in the same way as God "concluded s:w. all under sin" (<em><a href='B:550 3:22'>Gal 3:22</a></em>). Human sin and blindness is therefore used by God in the development of His final wonderful purpose of saving all His Israel.</p><p>Thus God works out His plan of salvation actually through man’s disobedience rather than his obedience. As Paul puts it, we are concluded in unbelief, that God may have mercy (<em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em>). It was and is the spirit of Joseph, when he comforted his brothers: “Now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life” (<em><a href='B:10 45:5'>Gen 45:5</a></em>). And again, speaking about the sin of Israel in rejecting Christ: “Their trespass means riches for the Gentile world” (<em><a href='B:520 11:12'>Rom 11:12</a></em>). Or yet again, think of how Abraham’s lie about Sarah and unfaithfulness to his marriage covenant with her became a source of God’s blessing and the curing of&nbsp; Abimelech’s wife from infertility (<em><a href='B:10 20:17'>Gen 20:17</a></em> - I read her infertility as a state that existed prior to the incident with Abraham). The righteousness of God becomes available to us exactly because we have sinned and come short of the glory of God (<em><a href='B:520 3:23-24'>Rom 3:23-24</a></em>). If we lie, then through our lie the truth and glory of God is revealed (<em><a href='B:520 3:7'>Rom 3:7</a></em>). The light comes into the world- the light of hope of salvation, forgiveness, of God in Christ- but this light reveals to us our verdict of ‘guilty’ (<em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:36'>Joh 3:36</a></em>).</p><p>The references to "all" being saved seem to be limited by the context- and "all" rarely means 'every single one', e.g. "all" Jerusalem went out to hear John the Baptist and were "all" baptized by him. I don't suppose the city was left deserted. The only passage which appears to have some bearing is <em><a href='B:520 11:32'>Rom 11:32</a></em>: "For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all". But the context speaks of how both Jews and Gentiles will be saved- not every Jew and Gentile that's lived, but those who accept the Gospel. And how does God have mercy? The preceding verse clarifies: "even so have these also now been disobedient, that by your mercy they also may now obtain mercy" (<em><a href='B:520 11:31'>Rom 11:31</a></em>):&nbsp; Surely the mercy we show to the Jews is preaching the Gospel of God's mercy to them. Their obtaining mercy depends upon our mercy. Because God chooses to work through us as His witnesses. The Jews must obtain salvation in the same pattern as the Gentiles do: "For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience..." (<em><a href='B:520 11:30'>Rom 11:30</a></em>). As Gentiles crossed over from disobedience to obedience to the Gospel, so must the Jews. And in the last days, this will happen: "…and so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (<em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em>). This turning away of ungodliness from Israel is required before "all"- i:e. the redeemed from both Jews and Gentiles- can be saved. But the turning away of ungodliness surely implies a repentance of some Jewish people; God won't just save them regardless, they must turn away from ungodliness.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:8'>Rom 13:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>Owe no one anything, apart from to love one another-&nbsp;</em>The 'owing' would be in the context of accumulating tax debts in the hope they would never be demanded or enforced. Or perhaps Paul does literally feel that material debt to others is to be avoided at all costs. He has spoken of honouring and respecting persons in :6 and :7, and he sees keeping out of debt as a way of ensuring that we can respect persons for who they are and without the background factor of appearing to respect those to whom we are in debt. In low income situations, petty debt is a way of life; perhaps Paul is urging avoiding this. The debt we have is to love others, for we have been so loved by the Lord, and we are to realize that our need to pay that back must be articulated in terms of loving our neighbour- not that we can ever repay our debt to the Lord. Paul's conception of love to the world around him was clearly rooted in the need to preach to them, rather than provide material help. He felt he had a debt to love others (<em><a href='B:520 13:8'>Rom 13:8</a></em>); yet also a debt to preach (<em><a href='B:520 1:14'>Rom 1:14</a></em>). His debt was to love in the form of preaching.</p><p><em>For he that loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law-&nbsp;</em>The law was fulfilled by the Lord's death on the cross. The death of the cross is the ultimate love of neighbour as self, the final honour, respect, submission etc. which forms the context here. The Lord's work and death can therefore really be participated in by us- in the small daily things of life such as kindness and respect to others.</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Love works no evil to his neighbour. Love therefore is the fulfilment of the law-&nbsp;</em>This looks at love from a negative aspect- love is the summation of all commandments, it is positively a loving of neighbour; but also working no evil is likewise another way of putting it. Yet the two sides are in parallel- positively, proactively doing good to neighbour is the same as working no evil to neighbour. This addresses the idea that 'I do no evil to others; I just keep myself to myself and have my own personal beliefs about Jesus, sit behind my screen and press the right buttons at times, no need for church, I just believe in my heart'. Such an attitude is increasingly popular in our disconnected and dysfunctional world, where people seem unable to cope with personal relationships. But to work no evil is part of doing proactive good. And remember that love is the fulfilment of the law, as epitomized in the Lord's death upon the cross. One could go further, and argue that by not doing the proactive love to neighbour, we are actually working evil to neighbour- for sins of omission are every bit as real before God as sins of commission. Perhaps Paul has in mind the LXX of <em><a href='B:240 3:27-29'>Pro 3:27-29</a></em>, where withholding good from our neighbour is paralleled with devising evil against him or her.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>As for the one who is weak in faith</em>-</p><p> Remember that this practical section of Romans from chapters 12 to 16 is based upon the pure theology of Romans 1-8. Abraham, the spiritual father of us all, was&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>"weak in faith" (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>). The same words are used; and the point is that even those in the church who do not have the faith of Abraham should still be accepted. And the later context of Romans 14 explains more. The 'weak in faith' were those who tried to obey Jewish food laws (:2); and some had been made weak in faith by the insensitive attitudes of others in the church (:21). But for whatever reason, the weak were to be received- in contrast to the attitudes of those who assume that 'fellowship' must be based upon being able to jump certain doctrinal or practical bars. We note that again in <em><a href='B:530 8:11'>1Co 8:11</a></em>, the weak are those who are legalistic- and yet they are the very ones who consider themselves strong by their legalism.</p><p><em>Welcome him</em>-</p><p> The reason is because both God and the Lord Jesus have received or welcomed him (<em><a href='B:520 14:3'>Rom 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>). The 'receiving' in view was presumably towards some who wanted to be in the church but who had been denied. The argument is similar to what had to be used with Peter- God had received the Gentiles, so Peter was to likewise. So perhaps it was the Jewish element who were unwilling to accept Gentiles in Rome. And this must be a principle for us too. We are not to be out of step with the Lord's acceptance of folks. It simply cannot be right to reason that 'They may well be good brethren in Christ, but we can't accept them because... '.</p><p><em>But not so as to just quarrel with him over opinions-&nbsp;</em>Of course, the Jewish legalists would have argued back as many do today: 'These are not matters of opinion, they are fundamental issues, God is a holy God... etc:'. The church was not to be a place of quarrelling. People were to be accepted with the positions they held without seeking to endlessly argue with them- that is surely the idea.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:2'>Rom 14:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>One man has faith to eat all things-&nbsp;</em>The faith was surely faith in Christ's cleansing work by which He had ended the Mosaic law and all conception of clean and unclean food.</p><p><em>But he that is weak eats herbs</em>-</p><p> Vegetarianism was associated with hyper legalistic Judaism, whereby every kind of meat was feared to be not completely bloodless or&nbsp;<em>kosher</em>. But those who had this position were "weak". Yet they were not to be argued with but accepted. This is not to say that Paul has no argument about this issue, for he clearly does elsewhere, as did the Lord Himself. But the point was that endless argument of a casuistic nature was not the way to resolve the issue. And again we have a valuable principle there. Presumably Paul does not engage with the Judaistic argument in the same way as he did in Galatians because he has already argued that justification is by grace and not the works of the law, and perhaps that point was accepted in general terms- whereas in Galatia it was not.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:12'>Rom 14:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God-&nbsp;</em>The connection between <em><a href='B:520 14:12'>Rom 14:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:470 12:36'>Mat 12:36</a></em> "every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account of it in the day of judgment" suggests that Paul recognized that we all speak idle words which we will have to give account of at judgment. Therefore, because of our rampant tongue, we will stand in deep need of grace. So therefore, Paul says, you’d&nbsp;better be soft on your brother now, in this life.</p><p>“Every knee shall bow to me... every tongue shall confess... so then every one&nbsp;<em>of us</em>&nbsp;shall give account" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>) is an example of where 'all men', 'every man' means 'every one of us the responsible'. “The dead” will be judged (<em><a href='B:730 11:18'>Rev 11:18</a></em>)- not everyone who ever died, but the dead who, God counts responsible. "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men" (<em><a href='B:630 2:11'>Tit 2:11</a></em>)- certainly not to every human being that has ever lived; but to the "all men" of the new creation. The Lord tasted death "for every man" (<em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>)- for every one who has a representative part in His sacrifice through baptism.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 14:23'>Rom 14:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:580 2:18'>Col 2:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>But he that doubts-&nbsp;</em>Romans 14, 15 have many allusions back to the earlier, 'doctrinal' part of Romans. Between them, those allusions teach that we&nbsp;<em>are&nbsp;</em>to be as Abraham; and yet we will be accepted if we can't rise up to his standard. <em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em> exhorts us to "receive the&nbsp;<em>weak in faith"-&nbsp;</em>when we have been told that Abraham was&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>weak in faith (<em><a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a></em>) and we should seek to be like him. But we are to receive those who are in his seed by baptism, but don't make it to his level of personal faith. <em><a href='B:520 14:5'>Rom 14:5</a></em> bids us be&nbsp;<em>fully persuaded-&nbsp;</em>as Abraham was "fully persuaded" (<em><a href='B:520 4:21'>Rom 4:21</a></em>). Yet, <em><a href='B:520 14:23'>Rom 14:23</a></em> he who&nbsp;<em>doubts</em>&nbsp;is damned- and Abraham didn't&nbsp;<em>stagger&nbsp;</em>s:w. <em><a href='B:520 4:20'>Rom 4:20</a></em>). Thus ultimately, he must be our example, even if some in the ecclesia will take time to rise up to his standard, and unlike him are "weak in faith".</p><p><em>Is condemned if he eats, because he eats not from faith</em>-</p><p> This is the opposite case of those who can happily eat whatever on the basis of their faith in the Lord's work; which is how "faith" is used in Romans.</p><p><em>And whatever is not of faith is sin</em>-</p><p> "Of faith" is a phrase used earlier by Paul in Romans; and I have argued that the practical section of the letter is full of reference to the theological foundations given in the opening section. "The just shall live by s:w. "of" faith" (<em><a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a></em>). If we are not living in justification in Christ, free from the Law, then we are in sin. This is the tough dualism Paul presents in the opening chapters of Romans. If they ate unclean food whilst still thinking they were thereby justified by the Law, then they were in sin- for Paul has proved that legalistic obedience to Law leaves us in sin, and only faith in Christ can get us into a status outside of "sin". The Jews could only be justified by or 'of' faith (<em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>). Rightness before God is only "of faith" (<em><a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:30'>Rom 9:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:32'>Rom 9:32</a></em>). Any other way leaves us "in sin". And yet we are left with a significant logical problem: If indeed justification and salvation are&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;"of faith" in Christ and not by keeping Mosaic commandments, then why does Paul as it were allow this whole question of obeying Jewish laws to be as it were a matter of personal conscience? I can only conclude that he accepts that God's grace in Christ is such that even those who did not fully 'get it' would still be saved. And that is grace indeed. This also answers the question as to what was to become of the Jewish Christians amongst Paul's readership who didn't fully accept his arguments. Were they thereby condemned? If they sought justification by obedience to Law, then yes- "he that doubts is condemned":&nbsp; But if they still hankered after obedience to Law and couldn't emotionally accept the full implications of that status- well Paul seems content to allow them some concession to that weakness.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:15'>Rom 16:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Philologus-&nbsp;</em>Another common slave name.</p><p><em>And Julia</em>-</p><p> The commonest name for female slaves in the imperial household because of Julius Caesar. Perhaps the wife of Philologus.</p><p><em>Nereus</em>&nbsp;<em>and his sister and Olympa</em>-</p><p> This name is found in inscriptions from the imperial household. Along with Julia, there is reason to think that there was a house group of Christians right in Caesar's household, comprised of believers whom Paul had personally known or maybe converted in other parts of the empire. Remember he had never yet visited Rome. We marvel how many slaves Paul knew personally. He, the Jewish rabbi, the intellectual, the educated and literate- had mixed with and converted those at the very lowest level of the social ladder. Many slaves could not easily get away from their masters, and so we imagine Paul entering the wealthy homes where they worked and lived.</p><p><em>And all the saints that are with them-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :14, this would seem to refer to house churches connected with each name.</p>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:19'>Rom 16:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For your obedience is known to all</em>-</p><p> Obedience is a major theme in Romans; Paul liked to see the believers in Rome as a parade example of Gentile obedience to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:26'>Rom 16:26</a></em>). He therefore feared that they would be led away by the Jewish false teachers, and this would negatively impact all those who had looked to them as an example of obedience. As noted in our study of Galatians, Titus and 1 Timothy, the legalism of Judaism was strangely attractive to the Gentile converts. To believe in salvation by pure grace is actually very demanding- for the wonder of it requires our all. The flesh finds it attractive to retain our acceptance that God and Jesus exist, but to slip back into a half-hearted attempt to keep a few laws in the hope that maybe we might be thereby accepted at the last day.</p><p><em>But I would have you to be wise regarding that which is good and simple concerning evil</em>-</p><p> A reference to the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the need to not listen to the voice of the serpent. The true wisdom was in Christ, not in the serpent. See on :20.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


